- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 07:50:40 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-iri@w3.org
On 03.05.2011 02:42, Adam Barth 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. > ... So if we observe four different UA behaviors (like in <base> data URI case), we do... what? Not have a spec, because it would be a lie?
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 05:51:34 UTC