- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:19:16 +0200
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
- CC: public-w3process@w3.org, Daniel Appelquist <appelquist@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On 2014-08-29 01:50, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > On Thu, 2014-08-28 at 14:25 -0400, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> I'm also interested in the rationale here. > > The rational is the same as Encoding, or DOM: W3C seeks clear > Royalty-Free licensing commitments from as many key stakeholders as we > can bring together, as well as stable content for normative references > (a consideration by the Director [1] as part of the Recommendation > Track). > ... Philippe, my understanding was that there is one more reason for this, and the spec even says so: "W3C-specific note: This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in contemporary Web browser implementations. As a consequence, this specification is not compatible with those RFCs. It is published for the purpose of providing a stable reference for the HTML5 specification and reflecting current Web browser HTML5 implementations. The W3C Technical Architecture Group expects to continue the work on the URL specification and produce a future version that will attempt to re-align the URL specification with an updated version of RFC 3986 while preserving interoperability." Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 06:20:03 UTC