Re: scoping the IRI processing spec (was Re: status of IRI work)

On 9/20/2011 5:21 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> I think there are two extremes: one is that "HTML5" can say "Oh, URI and
> IRI stuff, check this RFC, that's all" and the other is that "HTML5" has
> no need to contradict what we specify but is not aided much beyond that.
> I think the working group should make a specification that does not have
> to be contradicted; anything beyond that is quite optional as far as the
> "'HTML5' requirement", or any other "user"-specific requirement goes.

You think it would be a mistake for this WG to put out an IRI processing 
spec that helps to define, or align with, HTML, or HTTP-specific 
behavior.  What do other members of the WG think?

It seems to me that some share your view while others have been in favor 
of moving this idea forward in an attempt to align, or control, the 
outcome.  Maybe that's because HTML5 as a reference could have a 
stronger influence than 3986/3987 in how other protocols would process 
URIs/IRIs?

Bjoern do you consider it a contradiction or an override that HTML5 
would redefine the <unreserved> and other aspects of the ABNF definition?

Do you see it as a contradiction or override that HTML5 would replace 
all U+005C REVERSE SOLIDUS (\) characters with U+002F SOLIDUS (/) 
characters?

HTML5 seems aligned with 3986 and 3987 in some regards and no so in 
others.  Perhaps a line by line analysis of 
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#urls> would be 
helpful here to document the differences and the agreements?

Best regards,
Chris Weber

Received on Sunday, 25 September 2011 17:28:06 UTC