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: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:52:40 +0200
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <8CC5FA04-2F61-408F-AED5-792E086E9BA0@nordsc.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jan Algermissen wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> Let's in fact try: Hi guys, we need to fix STD 66 because it doesn't 
>>> define error handling.
>> Help me, I am just not getting it:
>> Why do you insist on 'fixing STD 66'?
>> What is the reason you are not willing to reframe the problem to 'fixing 
>> how we get from the provided string -the input to the reference 
>> construction process- to a STD-66-valid result'?
> Because that's not a good way to write specs. Implementors shouldn't have 
> to read three separate specs to implement one algorithm. The definition 
> for Base64 isn't spread into tree separate RFCs. You don't put the HTML 
> parser in a different spec than the HTML elements.
> A spec for this kind of thing should define the following:

Then, how about going from 'fixing STD 66' to

'augmenting STD 66 with how we get from the provided string -the input to the reference construction process- to a valid URI'?

(Personally, I do not see any problems with having one spec defining the valid output and one spec defining how to get from input to valid output. But that is a discussion that can be easily separated from the current one.)

What matters is that nothing of the existing URI spec *changes*.

Can you agree on that?


> - The conformance requirements for authors so that they can use the 
>   technology in a manner that avoids likely pitfalls
> - A processing model for each relevant implementation conformance class 
>   (software) that defines how you take the input and use it
> In the case of these string, that means, to a first approximation:
> - A definition of what the valid syntax of these strings is.
> - A definition of how you get from one of these strings, whether valid or 
>   not, to the information you need to process it, in particular, for 
>   e.g. strings that reference specific files:
>    - the scheme (what protocol you're going to be using)
>    - the hostname and port of the remote host
>    - the path and query string to pass to that host
>    - the fragment identifier
> So there should just be one spec, not three (IRIs, URIs, and the error 
> handling).
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 22:53:12 UTC

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