- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:55:36 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sunava Dutta <sunavad@windows.microsoft.com>, "annevk@opera.com" <annevk@opera.com>, Sharath Udupa <Sharath.Udupa@microsoft.com>, Zhenbin Xu <Zhenbin.Xu@microsoft.com>, Gideon Cohn <gidco@windows.microsoft.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, IE8 Core AJAX SWAT Team <ieajax@microsoft.com>
Ian Hickson wrote: >> If so, that doesn't really buy much as far as forwards compatibility >> goes. We have to be backwards compatible with what UAs accept, not what >> validators accept. > > Right, the parsing behaviour defines what UAs accept, as far as I can > tell. > > >> However doing something like what Maciej suggests, of stopping the url >> parser at the first whitespace character, sounds like it would solve the >> forwards compat issue. > > Agreed. Ok, so we need to make that change to the spec once Anne gets back. >> However, if the HTML5 algorithm only considers the same URLs valid as >> RFC 3986 does, is there a reason not to point directly to RFC 3986 >> instead? Seems like there is no reason to have more relaxed error >> handling here than needed? > > As you said, we have to be backwards compatible with what UAs accept, not > what validators (and RFCs) accept. This doesn't answer the question of what the win is of pointing Access-Control to HTML5 rather than to RFC 3986 for the url parsing algorithm. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 16:57:10 UTC