On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jan Algermissen wrote: > > > > The point is that what you and Anne are addressing is parsing of URI > > *References* not URIs. > > Anne's spec defines how you get from any arbitrary string (plus a base > URL) to a data structure with fields like scheme, hostname, port, path, > etc. The input can be absolute, completely invalid, the empty string, > whatever. > > Sounds useful but does not sound really like Anne's spec is "defining URLs", however. Clarifying the language in your spec ought to resolve any possible confusion. > > > This is why any references to fixing or aligning URI syntax with reality > > is besides the point and not neccessary. All that you (we) deal with is > > URI references and how to parse them to yield valid URIs. > > That's certainly part of the required work, yes. It's not all of it. > > Is there a list of issues that you and Anne are working from for this? If there indeed is a need to update the URI/IRI RFC's to address specific problems I'm sure it wouldn't take much effort to draft up an I-D. I'd be more than willing to help out with such an effort. > [snip] > I think the person doing the work has the prerogative to do it wherever he > or she wants to do it. Maybe the IETF should consider why Anne isn't doing > it in the IETF. > > Indeed. Good question: Anne, is there are particular reason why you chose not to pursue this work as an I-D? Let's get that particular issue resolved. - James > > > > The specs don't define everything that implementations have to do to > > > be interoperable. If the IETF doesn't think that's a problem, then > > > that's fine, but then y'all shouldn't be surprised when people who > > > _do_ think that's a problem try and fix it. > > > > Yes, please fix *that*, but *just* that without messing with the basics > > without consensus/review. > > Consensus isn't a value I hold highly, but review of Anne's work is > welcome. > > If the IETF community didn't want Anne to do this work, then the IETF > community should have done it. Having not done it, having not even > understood that the problem exists, means the IETF has lost the > credibility it needs to claim that this is in the IETF's domain. > > You don't get to claim authority over an area while at the same time > telling someone else "please fix that" for the hard work that comes with > that area. The reality is, he who does the hard work, gets the authority. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 22:51:55 UTC