- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:57:42 -0700
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, public-iri@w3.org
On May 2, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: >> >> Authors have been using plain old ASCII references to URIs for >> longer than the Web has been documented. We expect them to >> still work. Likewise for references that are in the document >> encoding but only use the subset of characters that are found >> in ASCII. URIs are defined in terms of characters, not octets, >> so the transcoding I am referring to is the removal of whitespace, >> pct-encoding of non-unreserved characters, etc. A reference that >> is already in URI form does not need to be transcoded. > > You're missing the constraint that browser vendors aren't going to > change their implementations to align with this dream. Our choice is > between having the specification reflect that reality or having the > spec tell a lie. Are there specific cases where browser URL resolution for an all-ASCII string that matches the valid URI grammar does not match what the RFC says? (There may be some, but I don't specifically know of any). Regards, Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 00:58:12 UTC