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: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:10:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMDN6+WGkvVC94iiSjB2O+ijGDiweqPfagm6ZTBdLz12_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> Having multiple specs means an implementor has to refer to multiple specs
> to implement one algorithm, which is not a way to get interoperability.
> Bugs creep in much faster when implementors have to switch between specs
> just in the implementation of one algorithm.
>

First, do you have data that supports this assertion?

Second, multiple folks in this conversation have asserted that the
right way to approach this is to have *two* algorithms.  The first is
"method to get from string to URI"  and the second is "Process URI".
It is not obvious that those need to be in the same document, any more
than the processing of DNS names needs to be described in the same
document of URLs whose schemes include DNS names.

(In case it is not obvious, it is the string-which-may-become-a-URI
that I have referred to as a "fleen" in previous notes).

It also seems far more likely to me that bugs will creep in from
re-defining a known algorithm (the "process URI" bit from the pair
above) than from the separation of that from a different operation.
If the results of the rewording would be different operations the, as
I have noted before, you really should use different terms and admit
to the fork.

My personal opinion, as has been noted,

regards,

Ted Hardie
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 00:10:47 UTC

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