- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:54:32 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 18.02.2010 19:16, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, can we get back to the discussion *why* there is this > > > restriction to the syntax (considering it's not implemented, and all > > > kinds of other garbage are allowed)? > > > > Isn't that now out of scope for this working group? I thought the parsing > > of URLs was now an IRI matter. > > For now it's not, until you change the spec's reference. So if I write a draft that redefines HTTP, and then make HTML refer to that draft instead of the HTTP spec, you'd argue that HTTP is in scope for this group? > That being said -- what do you *want* IRIbis to define here? As the UAs > do not implement what you specified I'm wondering what the rational for > this special case could be. So long as it's defined and compatible with legacy content, I don't really care what the spec says. In general I would encourage making things as simple as possible, but I don't know what that means in this case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 21:55:02 UTC