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

@mnot There was a link previously to a 2012 email thread when I believe this standard was first created. I'd rather not repeat it because it isn't important, but it seemed to me that Anne received a very unfair amount of pushback, primarily due to the choice of venue (WHATWG vs IETF). It was relatively heated, I would say. Especially after reading Larry Masinter's [summary](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ruby-url-problem) of URL standards history (from 2015) and the myriad IETF initiatives that simply fizzled due to lack of interest, the overall impression I get is of an organisation more interested in complaining and putting its name on things than actually fixing problems. The interest was not so much in solving the problems but rather ensuring that, if anybody does solve it, that solution says "IETF" on the cover.

It may be that things have changed (in fairness, an entire decade has passed), or that it wasn't a fair impression, or perhaps it is only true of certain members. Regardless, it means that when some new IETF effort gets proposed (as it was here), my immediate reaction is "no, thanks". That's what happens when the level of discourse is reduced to pointless bickering - who would choose to get involved with that?

IMO, matters like venue or formal vs algorithmic expression are distractions. We can switch between them at any point in the future, or even offer both at the same time, with no functional differences. Not one computer system in the entire universe would become more/less capable, more/less reliable, or more/less secure -- which means it's not engineering; it's politics.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/479#issuecomment-1137093120
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/479/1137093120@github.com>