- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:43:27 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'Marc Blanchet' <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca>, 'Ted Hardie' <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Paul Cotton' <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Michel SUIGNARD <Michel@suignard.com>, 'public-html' <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
> > If we can get agreement to provide an interface roughly similar to
> > what Ian proposed
>
> Honestly, I thought the IRIBIS document actually had what is being asked
> for here.
By "interface" what I meant was some text equivalent to defining a
function, something like:
"When a specification says that a user agent is to *parse an address*,
given a string INPUT, it must run the following steps, which return a
failure/success condition and a set of components:
...
When a specification says that a user agent is to *resolve an address",
given a string INPUT, a second string BASE, and a character encoding
ENCODING, it must run the following steps, which return a failure/
success condition and a string:
..."
This gives a completely unambiguous and clear way to invoke the algorithms
described in the spec, along with RFC2119-level clarity regarding what
such invokations imply for the user agent.
If this already exists in the IRIbis draft, then that's great news; I
couldn't find it when I looked, but it's a long draft so I could have
missed it, or I could have been looking at the wrong draft. I was looking
at this document:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-bis-07#section-7.2
If and interface already exists, then all I need to know is what terms to
use to invoke the algorithms referenced in the change proposal and then I
can update the HTML5 spec and that can resolve the HTMLWG issue.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 08:43:55 UTC