- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2014 14:21:14 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Bob Aman <bob@sporkmonger.com>
* Sam Ruby wrote: >I will say that if the IETF-W3C liaison group feels that submitting this >content as an Internet-Draft makes sense, I will follow through on that. > After all, publishing this content on WebPlatform.org was a result of >me following up on a suggestion[1]. If there are other serious >suggestions, I WILL follow up on them. You could also consider submitting a problem statement or other kind of higher level document with pointers to your proposals. Something, in any case, is better than nothing, if you want to raise awareness within and get feedback from the IETF community. >An example where help would be very much appreciated: would it be >possible for somebody who not only is familiar with RFC 3986 but also >has a sense for what parts might be changeable and what parts can't >change to review the following: > >https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/urltest-results/ This page is rather difficult to digest. One problem is that there is no indication of expected results, and the colour coding does not indicate, for instance, where test results diverge from the relevant RFCs. My http://shadowregistry.org/js/misc/ presents tests and results in a form that makes such information more readily available. >And while that is a broad request, here is a much more focused request, >define some test cases which will define how relative references should >be evaluated against a base with an unknown URLs/URIs scheme: > >https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27233 You already seem to have plenty of tests if you replace the scheme in them, and if you have a setup that can automatically evaluate tests, I would simply automatically generate test cases. For an example, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2011Aug/0001.html I also note that RFC 3986 already fully defines this, and I am not aware of differences in deployed code that cannot be changed in this regard. If there are, they ought to be brought up on the `public-iri` or `uri` list. -- 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 13:21:52 UTC