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: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:34:03 +0200
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1CAA500F-3AB4-4DD4-8330-E3B036B8F937@nordsc.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Jan Algermissen
> <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> This also does not test the fragment case.
>> 
>> Fragments are not sent to the server.
> 
> They are still important to consider if we want STD 66 to be the interface.
> 
> And yes, I know about URI and relative references. We call URI an
> absolute URL and a relative reference a relative URL and together we
> call them URLs.

Who is 'we'?

I don't, and I think many others don't either. Maybe this is part of the disconnect?

Jan




> We can have this discussion in whatever terminology
> you prefer though. The input to the parser is always going to be a
> relative reference, just sometimes there's no base URI.
> 
> As for your last point. We have invested time and money in explaining
> several problems starting over four years ago. Nothing happened. I
> just explained how I came to the text in the URL Standard. I gave up
> trying to work with STD 66 because the people working on that never
> invested time in my problems with it and the data I had gathered
> (mostly studying code in implementations and writing adhoc tests)
> suggested it was not a suitable starting point.
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 11:34:34 UTC

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