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

On 28.04.2011 03:52, Adam Barth wrote:
> 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.

Well, your proposal is fiction as well, as the simple example already 
showed.

>> 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.

Well, it's up to you to prove that.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 05:19:29 UTC