W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: URL, URI and the w3c

From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:14:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHUDSGDWyDUzLykFkE_C+GKZGy5SYxNsX=feEnrAmkE1Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Giuseppe De Marco <giuseppe.demarco@teamdigitale.governo.it>, ted.ietf@gmail.com
Dear all,

thanks for your replies!

From Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> ha scritto:
> On 14. Jun 2022, at 12:25, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:
> >> I assume that those specs are aligned, isn't it?
> >
> > They are very much not aligned. There are plenty of ways we can write URLs and URIs that parse differently based on these specs. I collect some of those issues here: https://github.com/bagder/docs/blob/master/URL-interop.md


> WHATWG describes Browser URLs.
> [..] even with different schemes than http/https, so it is good that we have a reference for URIs (3986) and IRIs (3987)
> [..]  The RFCs are also a stable reference [..]


> I think that 3986/3987 would be useful subjects for a revision, but I’m not sure there is energy for that.

Ok. Given Daniel's link I think that requires a strong commitment from
the community.

> [...] extracting the data model from the URI syntax and written it up in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-href-10.html — that was an interesting exercise

I'll take a look.

I am curious then what  a specification like OAuth-Somethin which
relies on both browsers and generic user agents
should adopt...

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 16:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC