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: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 12:09:57 +0300
Message-ID: <CADnb78hs13e2qqj3V1iuQXiKODMbNoCadT56K2f3NXMFpyiyww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2012-10-23 10:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> * 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.

Feel free to take mine, do that, and convince people it's better. It's
in the public domain. I have not done it as it just results in
overhead and no benefit.


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

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?word1=url&word2=uri


>> * 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.

This was about demonstrating that STD 66 is not a suitable interface.
(I thought you suggested that. If not, sorry, hopefully it helps
someone else.)


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 09:10:28 UTC

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