Re: draft-abarth-url-01 uploaded

On 24.04.2011 10:08, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> On 24.04.2011 00:31, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> I've uploaded a new version of draft-abarth-url:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-abarth-url-01.txt
>>>
>>> This version has text in every (normative) section, but still has lots
>>> of TODOs and there's still a lot of work to be done.  As always, you
>>> can see the lastest up-to-the-commit version of the document here:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/abarth/url-spec/blob/master/drafts/url.xml
>>>
>>> My plan is to continue iterating on this document by resolving TODOs.
>>
>> I still don't understand the purpose -- see previous mails. To make progress
>> on this we'll need a list of valid URIs you think need to be parsed
>> differently from what RFC 3986 already says.
>
> I don't understand why that's a pre-requisite for this work.  We'll
> generate that information as a byproduct of this work, of course, but
> we don't need that information to make progress at this point.

It depends on what "this work" means. If the WG is supposed to adopt 
this as a Working Draft, it better agrees first about what the purpose is.

>> That being said: where does the spec define parsing relative references?
>> (see<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.2>)
>
> The handling of relative references is in Section 4.  I was expecting
> to need to define how to parse them, but that doesn't appear to be
> necessary.

It starts with

    Given a string relative-url and a ParsedURL base-url, find the scheme
    of relative-url.

Finding the scheme aborts the algorithm when there is none, no?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 24 April 2011 12:37:42 UTC