- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:19:53 -0700
- To: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, uri@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHBU6ivsYjrTmTRgReh_pLk3ronZ1t-fB8etana8Ufrdverq+g@mail.gmail.com>
You guys are wasting time. Hixie & his posse have made it extremely clear that they consider the UR* specification broken, and that they consider that any time invested in addressing the problem at the IETF to be wasted because the IETF is broken too. I suggest that it’s not a good use of this mailing list’s time to try to convince Ian’s tribe to stop what they’re doing. I suspect it’s not a good use of WHATWG-member time to continue to explaining their feelings about the IETF. -T On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com > wrote: > > 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 15:20:24 UTC