- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:42:59 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > 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? That's pretty much the attitude that led to HTML5 needing to redefine as much as it does. But I guess we can always add URI processing to HTML5 as well while we're at it. If people want to send feedback on what they would have liked the URI spec to say, I can put it into the HTML5 spec in due course. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 12:42:59 UTC