- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:43:07 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 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 12/22/2014 08:20 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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? If there is a program I can use to mechanically check for RFC 3986 compliance and shows how a given URI is to be interpreted (scheme, host, path, query, fragment, etc.), I'll gladly update my results. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 13:44:00 UTC