Re: [url] Requests for Feedback (was Feedback from TPAC)

Hi Sam,

The thread below touches on a number of things; just for clarity, are you
asking Philippe and Wendy to ask the IETF to take a position on "the future
of URIs/URLs" or some more tightly scoped piece of the discussion to date?

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> 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/
>>
>>
>