Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

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/
>
>
>