W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2012

Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:51:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfgQrgduOzWaXcYieV3cw_=UoBaCC5e=XF+Y3PMEZoRMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, mnot@mnot.net
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC