- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 01:31:57 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
* Sam Ruby wrote: >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 At the moment that section reads, through W3C's html2txt service, Goals The URL standard takes the following approach towards making URLs fully interoperable: * Align RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 with contemporary implementations and obsolete them in the process. (E.g. spaces, other "illegal" code points, query encoding, equality, canonicalization, are all concepts not entirely shared, or defined.) URL parsing needs to become as solid as HTML parsing. [34][RFC3986] [35][RFC3987] * Standardize on the term URL. URI and IRI are just confusing. In practice a single algorithm is used for both so keeping them distinct is not helping anyone. URL also easily wins the [36]search result popularity contest. * Supplanting [37]Origin of a URI [sic]. [38][RFC6454] * Define URL’s existing JavaScript API in full detail and add enhancements to make it easier to work with. Add a new [39]URL object as well for URL manipulation without usage of HTML elements. (Useful for JavaScript worker environments.) As the editors learn more about the subject matter the goals might increase in scope somewhat. I do not understand what is meant by the parenthetical in the first point, neither does the last sentence seem meaningful to me. The second point seems tolerable. I have no idea what the third point means, and find the unexplained use of `[sic]` inappropriate. With respect to the fourth point, documenting web browser APIs is, in doubt, just writing down facts; I do not see how "the IETF" might not be OK with someone doing that. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015) · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2014 00:32:30 UTC