- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:20:45 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>
On 2014-12-22 14:04, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 12/22/2014 03:29 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2014-12-21 22:10, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> ... >>> I'll simply make the observation unless there is some movement at the >>> IETF that the risks will only increase over time. >>> >>> This is NOT an ultimatum. There isn't a a point at time where a >>> go/no-go decision needs to be made. But given the lack of demonstrable >>> progress in the last 90 or so days, I would suggest that there be a >>> cause for concern. >>> ... >> >> Sam, if you want to see something happen inside the IETF, the rifht >> thing to do is to start that work inside the IETF. And if you believe >> that something is incorrect in RFC 3986, the best way to make progress >> is to actually state what's wrong. And again, what's mostly interesting >> is not what RFC 3986 does *not* say (such as handling broken references >> from markup etc), but what it *does* say and gets wrong. > > What's interesting to different people varies. It's interesting for everybody who has to decide whether it's time to update RFC 3986 or not. > A concrete example of a problem with RFC 3986 is the lack of addressing > IDNA processing. How is IDNA processing relevant to URIs (being restricted to US-ASCII)? > It is entirely possible that handling of broken references can be > handled outside of RFC 3986. Other changes (IDNA, UTF-8, interop issues > on valid URIs) are best handled either as updates to RFC 3986 or in a > spec that replaces it. Of these points, only one is relevant to RFC 3986 (interop issues on valid URIs). > I encourage you to go to this page: > > https://url.spec.whatwg.org/interop/test-results/ > > Select the option to show only valid inputs, and then propose specific > changes. Note: that input could very well be to mark a number of these > inputs as invalid. I looked at test 0, it's labelled valid while it's invalid. Same for tests 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, and likely many more. Validity according to RFC 3986 can be mechanically checked; why do we need to "mark" something here? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 13:21:29 UTC