- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:41:12 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:25:42 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:06:14 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >>> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better >>> option because its makes the distinction more apparent. >> Since I'd expect, e.g. XMLHttpRequest and other specifications to adopt > > I wouldn't expect that. Why hardwire IRI-incompatibilities into XHR when > IE currently doesn't handle IRIs at all for XHR? Why not do the right > thing at least here???? Well, space characters and such are handled by everyone. Hopefully the HTML5 algorithm allows for passing UTF-8 as parameter to the algorithm so the query part is always encoded as such, but that doesn't mean there are some other bits that the URI/IRI specifications don't cover. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 07:41:58 UTC