- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:47:45 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 12/23/2014 02:07 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > At first glance, it appears like a lot of the valid URI/invalid URL > outcomes are because url LS is doing scheme-specific processing; is > that the case? (Currently working with limited net access + heavy jet > lag) That certainly explains a number of differences. Additionally: 1) There are cases that ABNF can't capture. I tend to agree with Julian[1] that the ABNF should be treated as rough syntax only, and that additional constraints should be specified in prose. That's effectively how the webplatform URL draft is structured[2]. 2) The URL LS is IDNA and Unicode more aware than RFC 3986 is. Clearly, this is by design, but I will suggest that there is an important lesson to be learned by the effort to split out RFC 3987 into a separate RFC: I think that unintentionally had the effect of "ghettoizing" IRIs. I might be misreading Martin, but perhaps that's why he suggested RFC 3986 errata as the way to handle bidi?[3] - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2014Dec/0079.html [2] https://specs.webplatform.org/url/webspecs/develop/#parsing-rules [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg13516.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2014 19:48:09 UTC