- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:20:14 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
On Sep 26, 2009, at 11:51 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> ... >> I don't see a great advantage in splitting the specs, as this makes >> cross-references more complicated. If it were just a matter of >> transforming the kind of string that may appear in an "href" >> attribute into a valid IRI, then your proposal might be plausible. >> However, in addition to converting to a URI, HTML UAs also need to >> be able to do the following to resource identifiers treated with >> lenient processing: (a) separate into components, even when the >> string is not a valid URI or IRI, and in a way that is not >> necessarily equivalent to first converting to a valid IRI or URI; >> (b) resolve a reference relative to a base when either the >> reference or the base might not be a valid URI or IRI; (c) >> determine if a reference is "absolute" even if it might not be a >> valid URI or IRI. That would mean a great deal of algorithms >> defined in a totally separate place from the URI spec. This is what >> the Web Address spec[1] attempted to do, and it ends up duplicating >> a lot of concepts from IRI/URI. This effort was set aside in favor >> of IRIbis incorporating the necessary content. >> ... > > a) As already mentioned in this thread, it appears this is covered > by the text in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-B>. I haven't thought carefully about Appendix B to determine if its component splitting does the right thing in all cases. Tentatively it looks about right. > b) Could you remind us why it's not possible to translate both to > valid URI/IRI and references first and then use the standard behavior? That is what the Web Address algorithm (the former HTML5 algorithm) in fact does, see step 9: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft.html#resolving-urls >. However, the steps to translate to valid URIs (and the required postprocessing rules) are quite involved and must be specified somewhere. > > c) Again, see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-B>. I can't see where Appenix B defines this. > > I do realize that a more normative way of what Appendix B says may > be needed, but please let's not dismiss what's already in the spec > as unusable. I don't believe I dismissed it. But I agree, a normative version is needed. Regards, Maciej
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 07:20:56 UTC