- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:06:59 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, L. David Baron wrote: > > The wording of the value of href for base elements [1] is not quite the > same as the wording for anchor elements [2], and technically [3] that > wording allows only absolute URIs. They should probably both say they > allow URI references (or IRI references), and the former should probably > say "be" or "equal" rather than the rather vague "contain". (I suspect > there are similar problems elsewhere.) > > Or, if you don't like using the term "URI reference" everywhere (which > may be worth avoiding), you should at least explain your usage in the > Terminology section with reference to terms defined in the URI/IRI RFCs. I've done a huge rewrite of everything URL-related now which should resolve all these issues and make everything consistent and (hopefully) realistic. On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, L. David Baron wrote: > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#terminology says: > # For readability, the term URI is used to refer to both ASCII > # URIs and Unicode IRIs, as those terms are defined by [RFC3986] > # and [RFC3987] respectively. On the rare occasions where IRIs > # are not allowed but ASCII URIs are, this is called out > # explicitly. > This is rather misleading, since backwards compatible use of URIs is > not ASCII-only. While IRIs are a superset of conformant URIs, IRIs > are a subset of real-world-URIs, since they have the encoding fixed > to UTF-8. Backwards-compatible URI handling tries to send the same > sequence of bytes that was in the document back to the server, > percent-encoded byte-by-byte, by encoding the URI based on the > encoding of the document. It's mildly more complicated than that, it seems, since path components always seem to use UTF-8 and query components use the doc encoding, but in any case, the spec now specified this. On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > Indeed. Considering the number of partly contradicting bug reports we > have here at Opera on the issue, it would be nice to have it clearly > spelled out, so that everyone is doing the same thing, and that we are > doing what the user expects. Please let me know if the spec, as it stands, is acceptable. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 15:06:59 UTC