- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:23:23 +0200
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Erik van der Poel" <erikv@google.com>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:59:38 +0200, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > Also, for both LEIRIs and Hypertext References, they are clearly minor > variations on IRIs, and they are clearly *tolerated* variations for > backwards compatibility and continuity rather than recommended best > practice. Using the "Best Practice" label for either of these would > detract from the fact that the relevant technologies (a group of XML > specs, and HTML5, respectively) allow acceptance of these variants, but > authors/generators/creators should avoid them wherever possible. I think the continued repetition of "HTML5" here is confusing. HTML5 was the first to define the algorithm, but it is used by Web browsers for HTTP, CSS, HTML, XMLHttpRequest, etc. and for all these there is content out there that depends on it. Having said that, only HTML has use for the URL character encoding parameter (as it was originally called). For the other contexts this is always UTF-8 (or not applicable, in case of HTTP). Also, it makes much more sense (due to the URL character encoding) to map Hypertext References directly to URIs rather than frame them as some type of IRI. That's the way they are implemented and used in the wild (even though the arguably shouldn't be). (See also my other comments.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 11:24:14 UTC