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

Re: URL, URI and the w3c

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2022 14:46:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6it+PjWcnQ9xHisw3YpzVy_Yyk1QNQR+GhOT80AZOxdrQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
Cc: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Giuseppe De Marco <giuseppe.demarco@teamdigitale.governo.it>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
I was saying something more specific. AFAIK, an 3986-conforming URL will
generally be interpreted by browsers in the way its author intended.

I went through https://github.com/bagder/docs/blob/master/URL-interop.md
and let me revise that slightly: Any 3986-conforming URL that is plausible
for inclusion in an Internet-Draft will generally be interpreted by
browsers in the way its author intended.  I was having trouble finding
counter-examples but am prepared to believe that I'm missing something
obvious.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:33 PM Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> > I think it’s the case that browsers will accept any 3986-conforming URI
> > that is within its abilities, i.e. http:, https: (and maybe ftp, etc?).
>
> No, sorry, that's not true. The browsers accept and work with the WHATWG
> URL
> spec style of URLs and they are incompatible with 3986-conforming URIs
> (and
> 3987 IRIs) in numerous ways. As I've explained.
>
> --
>
>   / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 21:47:14 UTC

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