W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > December 2013

Re: reviving the file URI scheme

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:56:55 +0100
Message-ID: <52AABDC7.8020206@gmx.de>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
CC: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, uri@w3.org
On 2013-12-13 03:48, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, December 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, John Cowan wrote:
>
>> Marcos Caceres scripsit:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 13, 2013 at 12:43 AM, John Cowan wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's in his bibliography. But like most (all?) WHATWG products, it is a
>>>> reference implementation, not a standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you might be confused: a browser is a reference implementation
>>> (in that you can reference it as attempting to implement a standard); a
>>> standard is a technical specification that has multiple implementations
>>> and is overseen by a standardization authority (in this case, the
>>> WHATWG).
>>
>>
>>
>> A reference implementation is an implementation that itself constitutes the
>> standard; if you want to know what the standard prescribes, you fire up
>> the implementation and try it. WHATWG standards are written in code
>> (it would be perfectly feasible to write a compiler for it), and that's
>> why they are reference implementations.
>>
>
> I don’t understand what you mean by they are written in code?

They are written in pseudo-code written in English (at least this one).

This might be very useful for people writing implementation code, but 
it's not so helpful for people *using* the feature (like authoring file 
URIs), or people trying to understand why something works the way it works.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 07:57:26 UTC

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