Re: Change definition of URL to normatively reference IRI specification using a well-defined interface

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> But defining these two productions doesn't require defining parsing; you 
> simply build them from the more basic elements.

It would be most convenient if the IRI spec could define this. Naturally, 
if it does not then the HTML spec will have to work around this 
limitation. However, since it is far easier to define this kind of stuff 
in one place rather than spread it around, I don't see why we would want 
the IRI spec to not define it. Productive cooperation comes from working 
groups working together to achieve the common goal of improving the Web.

> > > I think what's important is *compatibility*. Are the shipping UAs 
> > > consistent with respect to this? That was the data I was looking 
> > > for.
> > 
> > I trust Larry and Martin will check for compatibility with legacy 
> > documents when writing their parsing rules. That is what matters.
> So is it
>   #1 "I don't have the data"
> or
>   #2 "I do have the data, but I'm not sharing it"
> ?

I don't have the data at hand, but it's trivial to collect with a few test 
cases, as I'm sure you're aware.

> > I've no interest in debating the specifics in this mailing list, since 
> > the whole point of the exercise is to move the specifics to another 
> > standards organisation altogether. ...
> Well, we're not there yet, and I was trying to understand what you think 
> is required to get there.

I think the change proposal summarises precisely what I believe would be 
most useful in getting there.

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

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 22:46:02 UTC