- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:03:30 +0100
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:45:39 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> ... >> Note that the Web addresses draft isn't specific to HTML5. It is >> intended to apply to any user agent that interacts with Web content, >> not just Web browsers and HTML. (That's why we took it out of HTML5.) >> ... > > Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For instance, I > would consider the Atom feed content (RFC4287) as "Web content", but > Atom really uses IRIs, and doesn't need workarounds for broken IRIs in > content (as far as I can tell). Are you sure browser implementations of feeds reject non-IRIs in some way? I would expect them to use the same URL handling everywhere. > Don't leak out workarounds into areas where they aren't needed. I'm not convinced that having two ways of handling essentially the same thing is good. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:03:30 UTC