W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] [URL] Starting work on a URL spec

From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:09:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4c5a0142.1207e30a.3f55.5e32@mx.google.com>
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:21 AM, bjartur <svartman95 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/25/10 8:57 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> >> It may not be an _html_ interoperability problem, but it's certainly a
> >> _web_ interoperability problem.
> >
> > It's a question of how HTTP messages are encoded (and in special the enco=
> ding of the IRI).
> > WHATWG does not specify HTTP, these concerns should be directed to IETF.
> 
> There are various ways to spec lawyer things so you can make this work
> appear to be the responsibility of various folks.  The work needs to
> be done.  I'm inclined to do the work first and worry about what >
organization (if any) has "jurisdiction" later.
Yeah, true. I've been through a repetive "ask the county" "ask school
authorities", "ask the county" when asking my school to implement a
SHOULD from national gov. *shrugs*

But really, you should discuss this with the HTTP WG of IETF by raising
the issue in <http-wg at hplb.hp.com>. I recommend searching the archives,
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail, for counter-arguments
before posting as this issue has probably be raised before. Then
someone should fork RFC 2616 (or the latest working draft, if there's
a current one).

Patching the RFC == doing the work (good lucking getting consensus on
your side if you don't provide rationale, don't defend your decisions
and ignore the IETF though)
Received on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 17:09:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:26 UTC