- From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 18:14:13 +0200
- 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 :fear: > 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 [..] Clear. > 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... Thanks++, R.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 16:14:36 UTC