- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 07:10:50 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
My problem is not URL vs. URI. Frankly, I do not care too much about that, and I am happy to ditch URI in favour of URL. However, the problem seems to be IRI. At the moment, https://url.spec.whatwg.org/ has a reference to the IRI spec[1] but only as part of the stated goals. I do not see the URL parsing (in the WhatWG document) also taking care of IRI-s. If I am proven wrong then, personally, I do not have any objection using URL-s, acknowledging the fact that the latest HTML draft, for example, refers to the What WG document normatively. But if IRI-s are not (yet) part of the WhatWG spec then I think we would have a problem. Cc: @r12a @duerst [1] M. Duerst; M. Suignard. Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). January 2005. Proposed Standard. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987 -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/241#issuecomment-222076225 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 27 May 2016 07:10:53 UTC