Re: Agreement on IRI "processing spec" moving to W3C

* Chris Weber wrote:
>During IETF 82 an announcement was made that the IRI "processing spec" 
>would move to the W3C for creation as a self-contained document.  See 
><http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/> for the minutes.
>
>Are IRI WG members in agreement on this decision?

Writing up what web browsers do with resource identifiers that you would
not know from RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 just requires understanding the two
documents and some creativity in writing test cases, writing test cases,
running them through the browsers, and document the results. We would go
through the results, determine what a specification should say on the
matter, if anything, and then we would have any number of people who put
that into specification text in a couple of hours regardless of who gets
to publish the end result. That includes satisfying requests for macros
in a central place that other specifications could reference. I do not
think the testing work interferes with the other deliverables, and I do
not think anyone feels seriously inhibited conducting this testing work
because of who is currently owning the deliverable. We already had many
different entities owning it, none of them finished doing the testing
work that would make the rest terribly easy; I don't see how that would
change if this working group passes the matter on once more.

Have a look at http://shadowregistry.org/js/misc/ in a modern browser
with JavaScript support turned on. For the most of the test cases there,
there is currently no specification addressing the cases. If you want to
write one, you can go through the list of test cases, look at the test
results right below, decide whether you want to define the behavior and
which behavior should be defined, and when you've done enough of that,
you go and write a specification that documents your decisions. The work
on the "processing spec" should start with making a page just like that;
that is the only "hard" part. I am fine with the Working Group saying,
yeah, well, nobody bothered to make such a document, so we should drop
the idea, but I object to officially passing this on to some other group
without very clearly documenting the reasoning behind such a decision,
better reasoning than "we didn't do it".
-- 
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 Thursday, 24 November 2011 03:04:24 UTC