- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:35:58 +1000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, uri@w3.org
On Friday, December 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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. If one is looking for developer documentation, then MDN or webplatform.org might be more appropriate that looking at a spec. However, if a spec doesn’t answer “why” something works in some particular way, then that’s bug in the spec (certainly not a feature of it!). Anyway, this is really a discussion for spec-prod@w3.org, not the URI list. My point was that the WHATWG’s url spec already standardizes file://, so I’m trying to understand if there is need for the RCF also? or if the two can be somehow merged so we don’t end up with duplicate specs.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 10:36:40 UTC