Re: [whatwg/url] Provide a succinct grammar for valid URL strings (#479)

@masinter Thank you. I think that is a good strategy, but with an aside. It is dangerous to apply the IETF level of accuracy and exactness to this too soon. Rather it has been tearing apart, digesting, recomposing/ refactoring what the WHATWG has produced, and now trying to relate it to what was there before. 

> what is the minimum to resolve the differences in normative specifications? Once the specs are aligned normatively, you can do everything else.

I got carried away, but some of the things I mentioned do need to be done, otherwise you cannot make that comparison. Or perhaps, those items are my answer to that question. 

Have you studied my reverse specification? Have you checked it against the WHATWG standard and your knowledge of the RFCs? Do you have comments or ideas? Doing so should enable you to answer this question as well. 

> Step 0: host a BOF at IETF 111 with stakeholders. (Get people to show up and agree to do work.)

I'm a bit intimidated, but, it sounds good.

Oh except the work thing. I was taken aback, because I've done _so_ much work on this already, and still, and I am kind of tired. Also, I find the political situation unpleasant. I don't want to pick sides. I just want to solve the situation. 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-858590596