Am 14.06.2022 um 18:14 schrieb Roberto Polli: > 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... > ... Depends on where the URIs appear... Best regards, JulianReceived on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 16:33:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:07 UTC