- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:28:58 +0100
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote: > 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. Well yes, and a subset of those is browser based. Besides that, most feed readers handle HTML. Do you think they should have two separate URL parsing functions? >>> 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. Obviously you would first split on whitepace and then parse the URLs. You can still use the same generic URL handling. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:28:58 UTC