- From: Erik van der Poel <erikv@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:10:59 -0800
- To: public-iri@w3.org
> I told you before, the solution to this problem is to not use > the same term for both the input and output of the algorithm. I agree that the input and output are important. For better interoperability, two implementations, when given the same input, should produce the same output(s). When the input is an HTML <a href="http://...">, there are several possible outputs, depending on further inputs such as mouse clicks and JavaScript: DNS NAME TCP Destination Port HTTP Request-URI, Host DOM HTMLAnchorElement href, protocol, host, hostname, port, pathname, search, hash Browser URL field, status bar Search Engine href, display URL Since the IRIbis work is likely to take a long time, my recommendation would be for the HTML5 drafts and "final" spec to always have a complete set of rules and recommendations for URL processing, with references to other drafts/specs such as URI, IRI, IRIbis, HTTP, HTTPbis, and DOM, as appropriate. It may be that some HTML implementation behavior details can eventually be pushed down to IRIbis or even URIbis, but there is no need to wait for those working groups to reach rough consensus. (Of course, the HTML WG might take long to reach consensus too. :-) Now the terminology. "Web reference" doesn't quite seem right since FTP and SMTP predate the Web. I think terms like URL, absolute URL and relative URL are fine. We just need to remember (and document) that the rules and recommendations are different, depending on the context (e.g. HTML href vs rel, producer vs consumer). Erik
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 16:11:34 UTC