Re: requesting feedback regarding HTML5 and RFC 3987

* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Fri, 27 May 2011 04:04:38 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>  
>wrote:
>> The people working on "HTML5" can and will solve what problems they have
>> and there is no need nor good reason to try to solve their problems for
>> them at this point. I would be more sympathetic to this if I regularily
>> saw people from Microsoft, Mozilla, Google, Apple, Opera, posting here,
>> but they are not.
>
>We solved it once within HTML5 and were told to remove it for something  
>that would come out of this WG approximately a year ago (it was split out  
>two years ago). I think it should not be surprising people are somewhat  
>hesitant to participate.

There are a number of tests one can apply to determine whether any pro-
posal is a reasonable solution. A quick one is checking whether there is
a special rule for something resembling the "javascript" scheme for the
"#" character. As that does not signify a fragment identifier in various
web browsers, a proposal that does not account for that is unlikely to
be based on proper research. There are other tests, but even for this
simple one, I am not aware of any proposal that takes that into account.

If we do have the problem solved then there is nothing left to do, so I
would wonder why we are still talking about this if you are correct. My
impression is rather that people figured this stuff is hard and they do
not actually want to work on this themselves. With the thread here, the
question was whether people agree with something or other. I asked what
actions the available options would translate to and got no answer. I'd
take that as people not knowing what is to be done, or who is to do it.

>(Also, Adam Barth is pretty active and seems to be solving the problem we  
>have.)

How many issues did he raise exactly, explaining and demonstrating that
and how RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 need to be changed? Showing us something 
like "existing specs require X but everyone does Y"? I have raises such
issues, but I am not aware of issues Adam Barth raised at this level of
detail in this sense. I am aware that Julian Reschke and others asked a
number of times for specific issues, but that's it.

Look, if you made a good argument that "ö://..." should be handled as a
URI with a scheme of "ö", or that it should be handled as a relative re-
ference, with supporting evidence, but the specification suggests some-
thing else; that I would be very happy to discuss. Vague suggestions on
how existing specifications may be inadequate, or how people kinda don't
really feel like participating for one reason or another, those do not
help us make any progress.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 00:06:46 UTC