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

On 12/05/2014 12:55 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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?

Ideally, I'd like to have feedback on the entirety of the following 
document:

https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/

At a minimum, I would like to know whether or not the IETF is OK with 
the goals:

https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/#goals

I fear/suspect that doing so will require the topic of the future of 
URIs/URLs to be addressed along the way.

> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie

- Sam Ruby

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <mailto: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
>     <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
>             <mailto: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
>         <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/
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>>
>             To: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org <mailto: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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <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
>             <http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html>
>             [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/__91/index.html
>             <https://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html>
>             [3] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#__relative-scheme
>             <https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#relative-scheme>
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 December 2014 18:54:17 UTC