- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:07:38 +0100
Simon Pieters wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:16:17 +0100, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote: > >> For the record: I totally disagree. It's not the job of the URI and >> IRI RFCs to describe how a user agent has to handle things that do not >> conform to the RFC3986/3987 syntax. > > Why not? > > The HTML4 WG had this position about HTML as well. This position is what > makes interoperability suffer, browser vendors having to spend lots of > resources reverse engineering each other, and the resulting de facto > error handling being suboptimal (hard to make extensions, for instance). Because URIs are just a syntactical construct. If there are common requirements for *user agents* how to handle things that aren't URIs but should have been, specify them for these user agents. For instance, why should RDF or XMLNS care about what *browsers* do with broken identifiers? BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 06:07:38 UTC