- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:52:13 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
Mark, thanks for the support, but I think that this is a matter that needs a bit more clarity and wide review. PLH, Wendy, as the official W3C liaisons[1] to the IETF, I asking you to officially request that the IETF take a position on this subject. - Sam Ruby [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/IetfW3cLiaison On 12/02/2014 12:12 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > Hi Sam, > >> On 1 Dec 2014, at 3:30 am, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> >> My understanding (see forwarded message below) was that the IETF and W3C TAG were going to issue statements providing input to the evolution of the URL Standard in mid-November. As November is now drawing to a close, can I get an update on the status of this? > > I've discussed this with Barry, the responsible AD, who has said he's going to hold the document until this and another (unrelated) situation become more clear (and perhaps beyond) -- see: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13358.html > >> Additionally, the effort to merge my parser work with the remainder of the URL standard is now at a point where I would like to encourage wider review -- either by individuals or by groups: >> >> https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/ >> >> I'd suggest that the first three sections (namely, 'Goals', 'URLs', and 'Authoring Requirements') would be of particular interest to the IETF and TAG, but I welcome input on all sections. >> >> My preferred method if input is GitHub pull requests: >> >> https://github.com/webspecs/url/pulls >> >> Alternate methods of input (including discourse itself) and other related links can be found here: >> >> http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/about-the-url-category/691 >> >> Finally, input on the following bug would be appreciated: >> >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25946 > > Like Domenic, I strongly support these goals; I've done it in person, but I also want to publicly thank you for grasping the nettle -- one that has stung many a person. > > Cheers, > > >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [url] Feedback from TPAC >> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:01:50 -0700 >> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> >> To: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org> >> >> bcc: WebApps, IETF, TAG in the hopes that replies go to a single place. >> >> - - - >> >> I took the opportunity this week to meet with a number of parties >> interested in the topic of URLs including not only a number of Working >> Groups, AC and AB members, but also members of the TAG and members of >> the IETF. >> >> Some of the feedback related to the proposal I am working on[1]. Some >> of the feedback related to mechanics (example: employing Travis to do >> build checks, something that makes more sense on the master copy of a >> given specification than on a hopefully temporary branch. These are not >> the topics of this email. >> >> The remaining items are more general, and are the subject of this note. >> As is often the case, they are intertwined. I'll simply jump into the >> middle and work outwards from there. >> >> --- >> >> The nature of the world is that there will continue to be people who >> define more schemes. A current example is >> http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/220 (search for "New URI scheme for naming >> stored modules, classes, and resources"). And people who are doing so >> will have a tendency to look to the IETF. >> >> Meanwhile, The IETF is actively working on a update: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04 >> >> They are meeting F2F in a little over a week[2]. URIs in general, and >> this proposal in specific will be discussed, and for that reason now >> would be a good time to provide feedback. I've only quickly scanned it, >> but it appears sane to me in that it basically says that new schemes >> will not be viewed as relative schemes[3]. >> >> The obvious disconnect is that this is a registry for URI schemes, not >> URLs. It looks to me like making a few, small, surgical updates to the >> URL Standard would stitch all this together. >> >> 1) Change the URL Goals to only obsolete RFC 3987, not RFC 3986 too. >> >> 2) Reference draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg in >> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-writing as the way to register schemes, >> stating that the set of valid URI schemes is the set of valid URL schemes. >> >> 3) Explicitly state that canonical URLs (i.e., the output of the URL >> parse step) not only round trip but also are valid URIs. If there are >> any RFC 3986 errata and/or willful violations necessary to make that a >> true statement, so be it. >> >> That's it. The rest of the URL specification can stand as is. >> >> What this means operationally is that there are two terms, URIs and >> URLs. URIs would be of a legacy, academic topic that may be of >> relevance to some (primarily back-end server) applications. URLs are >> most people, and most applications, will be concerned with. This >> includes all the specifications which today reference IRIs (as an >> example, RFC 4287, namely, Atom). >> >> My sense was that all of the people I talked to were generally OK with >> this, and that we would be likely to see statements from both the IETF >> and the W3C TAG along these lines mid November-ish, most likely just >> after IETF meeting 91. >> >> More specifically, if something along these lines I describe above were >> done, the IETF would be open to the idea of errata to RFC3987 and >> updating specs to reference URLs. >> >> - Sam Ruby >> >> [1] http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html >> [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html >> [3] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#relative-scheme >> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 16:53:06 UTC