Re: Error handling in URIs

Just my personal two cents on what Martin said (at least how I 
understood it): there are (not necessarily web browser oriented) 
scenarios in which you need constraints on IRIs as defined in RFC 3987, 
and there are others. HTML 5 belongs to the latter category, and it 
makes sense to document that. In order to avoid confusion with the 
regular IRI constraints, I think it makes also sense to document that 
outside of RFC 3987.

Felix

Ian Hickson さんは書きました:
> 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.)
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 08:44:26 UTC