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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:45:14 +0200
Message-ID: <5086591A.30408@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: uri@w3.org
On 2012-10-23 10:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I'm not subscribed to this list, but I guess there's a few points I can make.
>
> * This is not about the address bar. The address bar is UI.
> Standardizing UI does not pass the test of time.
>
> * If you think the URL Standard fragments, you have cause and effect reversed.
>
> * Building on top of STD 66 is not practical. You want a single
> algorithm that deals with parsing, resolving, and canonicalizing.

Sounds like three algorithms with well-defined interfaces to me.

> * That the URL standard will call the input a URL matches common
> usage. Given that a relative URL can be empty string, a URL can indeed
> be the empty string. Roy thinks this is absurd, I think it's quite
> logical. The object model I will probably call "parsed URL", but I'm
> open to suggestions.

What's "common usage" may depend on context. It may be true for the 
browser world.

> * For Julian, an example of a URL that would be invalid per STD 66 yet
> is transmitted over the wire just fine: http://www.w3.org/% or
> http://www.w3.org/?% Also fragments such as #™ do not undergo any
> transformation. Fragments are pretty much parsed as literals except
> for thirty or so code points.

Again, I'm mainly interested in *valid* URIs where you think RFC 3986 
needs fixing.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 08:45:43 UTC

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