Re: Non-hierarchical base URLs (was Re: draft-abarth-url-01 uploaded)

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> It would seem like we could distinguish between "How IRIs (URLs) are parsed" and
> "how relative forms are resolved against absolute".

Indeed.  These are separate sections in my document.

> It seems more important to preserve scheme-independent base+relative -> absolute
> calculations, but having "parsing" depend on scheme... well, in some ways that's almost
> a requirement. if you "understand" the scheme, you should be able to parse it.

The behavior we expect browsers to converge upon is scheme-dependent.
There's no two ways around that.  If we write a scheme-independent
spec, the spec will be fiction.

> Along the way, it would be wonderful if we could get some attention on updating the
> "file:" scheme specification, although doing so would likely be out of scope for this working
> group, maybe we could get a list of schemes whose definitions should be updated for
> internationalization, bidi, etc.

I do plan to cover file URLs.  However, I could probably be talked out
of it because it's an even bigger mess.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> - This is an edge case; unless I'm missing something, using "data:" as a
> base URI is meaningless. This is what FF and IE seem to think.

We want to get all the edge cases correct.

> - There's no interop here at all. So it appears we could recommend something
> that is actually based by the specs.

A lack of interoperability is not a license to make a free choice.
There is a "best" behavior we can choose, and it's not what RFC 3986
says.

Adam

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 01:53:39 UTC