- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:41:38 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Nov 3, 2014, at 15:32 , Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 4:19 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> The readability is much better (I am not a fan of the current trend of writing specifications in pseudo-basic, which makes life easier for implementers and terrible for anyone else, including authors), and I also think that an approach that doesn’t obsolete RFC 3986 is attractive. > > Is Apple interested in changing its URL infrastructure to not be > fundamentally incompatible with RFC 3986 then? I was expressing a personal opinion on readability, and on living in a larger community, not an Apple position. > > Other than slightly different eventual data models for URLs, which we > could maybe amend RFC 3986 for IETF gods willing, I think the main > problem is that a URL that goes through an RFC 3986 pipeline cannot go > through a URL pipeline. E.g. parsing "../test" against > "foobar://test/x" gives wildly different results. That is not a state > we want to be in, so something has to give. Agreed, we have to work out the differences. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 15:42:17 UTC