- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100
Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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. I wasn't talking of "browser implementations of feeds", but feed readers in general. >> 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. It's unavoidable, as the relaxed syntax doesn't work in many cases, for instance, when whitespace acts as a delimiter. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:25:19 UTC