- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:17:53 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-iri@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2011-06-20 11:02, Adam Barth wrote: >> ... >> I can just repeat what I've said before. This behavior needs to be >> specced. We can either spec it here or somewhere else. Given that >> the behavior is implemented in the URL processing code (and not the >> DOM), the natural place to spec it is here (and not in the DOM specs). >> ... > > Well, the WG should make a conscious decision here. That sounds like a good first order of business. > I can see that it may make sense to define a canonical form. In that case we > need to decide whether it would be scheme-agnostic (see > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.6.2.2>), or > whether it needs to go any further. In the latter case we would enter the > area of scheme-specific rules, which I believe the generic URI/IRI spec > should not do. It's extremely likely that it will need to be scheme-specific (with some short, finite list of scheme types). Adam
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 09:18:53 UTC