- From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:52:40 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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? Jan > > - 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