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

On 12/05/2014 12:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Sam Ruby 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.
>
> In order for the IETF to take a position on the subject, it would
> require an Internet draft stating the position and an appropriate
> public review.  Even so, at best what you would get is a bunch of
> opinions on what might be a reasonable way forward.
>
> IMO, a solution would be to just remove the bits of the URL spec
> that say it redefines RFC3986 (because it doesn't), name the spec to
> something reasonable (like "URL Object and Processing References in HTML"),
> and then complete the work you have started on making the parsing
> algorithm for references more closely reflect deployed implementations.
> I don't think the IETF protocols that depend on RFC3986 would have
> any problem with such a document, and it would satisfy the needs of HTML.

Examples of non-HTML implementations:

http://nodejs.org/api/url.html
https://github.com/smola/galimatias
http://servo.github.io/rust-url/url/index.html

> However, it is still ridiculous to claim that URI != URL in Web parlance.
> URL is and always has been the subset of URI that can be used as a locator,
> which most people understand to be equivalent to the set of all URI once
> they figure out how HTTP works.  Changing the existing term URL to fit the
> definition of a reference is just plain confusing, even within the HTML
> specifications.  I know because I tried to do that myself in the early
> drafts of RFC1808.  If the goal is to produce quality specifications,
> we should expect the terms to be used correctly.

Historical considerations aside, modern releases of Chrome, Firefox, 
Internet Explorer, and Safari have an object/function named 
"window.URL".  I'm not optimistic that this can be changed at this point.

> ....Roy

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 18:54:05 UTC