- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:46:15 +0100
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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? Because it's preferable to the alternative, which is, leaking out the non-conformant URI/IRI handling into other places. >>> 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. The issue is that it's *not* the same thing. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:46:15 UTC