- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2014 00:10:07 +0000
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
URL is one of a small number of topics where coordination between IETF (and use of IANA) and W3C and WHATWG would improve the situation, because specs overlap and say different things, there are gaps, or just differences in terminology, timing, authority. URL syntax, equivalence, I18N. URN. Encodings. Origin. Mime sniffing. Multipart/form-data. DBOUND (same site). The list isn't long. I think that's it, for "willful violations". HTTP and JSON seem to be OK. URL is just the most immediate, because at least there's some IETF activity with which to coordinate. I don't want to assign blame, but let's not start with "there is no problem". On the naming issue: I think it would be easier to get the IETF to readopt "URL" than it would to get WHATWG to use "URI" and "IRI". Perhaps because the name really doesn't matter much as long as it's explained, what matters is reducing confusion by agreeing on the name. So I'm prepared to help write an explanation about how we came to have URL, URI, URN, IRI, URC and why we got together and agreed to ..... URL. We haven't gotten to be able to discuss whether unknownscheme://コーヒー should be encoded in punycode or %-hex ... where 3987 doesn't say for sure. Having one answer for IETF and another for the Web is bad for interoperability--scoping things to HTML is a bad idea. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2014 00:10:37 UTC