- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:36:48 +0100
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:31:01 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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? > > Yes, absolutely. Why? >>>> 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. > > In which case IRI handling should be totally sufficient. I don't follow. I said "I'm not convinced that having two ways of handling essentially the same thing is good." Then you said "It's unavoidable". Then I pointed out it is avoidable. And then you say this. It doesn't add up. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:36:48 UTC