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 11:19:16 +0200
Message-ID: <50866114.4040700@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: uri@w3.org
On 2012-10-23 11:09, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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

I was referring to "whatever you find in @href" as opposed to "what RFC 
3986 says it is".

>>> * 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.)

OK, so if browsers put /% on the wire *and* servers rely on that, that 
would be an issue. However, I'm not convinced the latter is the case.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 09:20:17 UTC

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