- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:44:33 -0600
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On 7/30/12 12:05 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > IRIs are widely deployed and referenced; > RFC 3987 is referenced by 42 RFCs > http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/citations-rfc3987.html > > and many W3C specs: > https://www.google.com/search?q=3987+rfc+site%3Awww.w3.org%2FTR > at least some of which use IRIs or something like them as protocol elements. > > The problem is that we have at least 3 different classes > > > RFC 3987-compatible < LEIRI compatible (used in XML) < browser-compatible (used in HTML and other browser implementations). > > HTML5 allows use of document character set for query parameters, and a wide variety of characters not valid in LEIRI, but of course allows RFC 3987 compatible. > LEIRI allows RFC 3987 but also spaces. > > The question is whether any of the protocols that allow IRIs really need to maintain RFC 3987 compatibility, or would want to be compatible with browsers. > I think "web applications" (i.e., things built with the HTML javascript-engine) want to be compatible with browsers. Hi Larry, thanks for asking the question. I looked at that list of 42 RFCs, and the one technology that I think might have wide deployment and 3987-compatible usage is the Atom format (RFC 4287 and friends). It is often consumed by browsers, but not always. I'll post a query to the atom-syntax@imc.org list and report here with my findings. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 21:45:01 UTC