- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:53:08 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > you can now look and see if what the spec says is acceptable > > Of course not, claiming that any IRI is an URI is patent nonsense. Hm, it's not my intent to have any patent nonsense... could you quote the bits that are nonsensical? > URIs are specified in RFC 3986, not in RFC 3987. And IRIs are specified > in RFC 3987, not in HTML5. That's kind of what I said already, and why > I guess that HTML5 will never fly: It tries to reinvent the Web, if not > the Internet. And this is a Bad Thing. Actually we're trying to not reinvent the Web, but to document it, so that browser vendors can write browsers that handle existing Web content in a fashion compatible with legacy UAs without reverse-engineering each other. (It's true that this is requiring defining things that are at odds with existing specifications, but that's mostly because those specifications aren't in fact in line with real usage. I make no judgement as to whether that's a good thing or not, that doesn't much matter to me.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 07:53:43 UTC