Re: ISSUE-56: urls-webarch - suggest closing on 2009-09-03

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> But, as Dan pointed out yesterday in 
> <>, it 
> still uses the term URL for things that aren't URLs, and states:
> "Note: The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct 
> from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers 
> familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if 
> they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something 
> else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]"

(I had noted Dan's feedback as needing a reply and will do so in due 

> This issue hasn't gone away by moving the actual definition somewhere 
> else. Furthermore, the reference currently points to an outdated 
> document, not IRIbis.

The current reference to the "outdated document" is such because the 
IRIbis draft is woefully inadequate as a reference currently. I have sent 
comments regarding this to Larry and will happily update the reference to 
point to IRIbis as soon as it is a functionally useful reference.

In the meantime, implementors would have no guidance if we were to point 
to IRIbis already. Getting convergence on implementations to improve 
interoperability is my overriding goal here, and thus having a useful 
reference is far, far more important than having the theoretically 
correct one.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 21 August 2009 07:33:28 UTC