Re: URLs

On 2012-06-15 15:41, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> The RFCs specify how to parse and resolve. I believe the best way to fill
>> the gap for browser implementations is to specify the error recovery on top
>> of these operations, instead of pretending the specs are wrong and rewriting
>> them.
>
> There's no pretense. We went through this before, including giving
> tests and dozen of examples:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Jun/thread.html#msg24

That discussion went nowhere, as far as I recall. In particular it was 
claimed that something webkit does is needed for web compatibility but 
then we heard that mozilla disagreed (I think it was the special 
treatment of "\" outside file: URIs).

> The URL RFCs are wrong and monkeypatching them is not something I'm
> interested in doing.

Not helpful.

What would be helpful is a clear problem statement. Like "the RFCs force 
us to handle this URI in a way that is incompatible with existing 
content". I'm sure there *are* problems, but simply writing down what 
webkit happens to do today (*) makes it incredibly hard to see what the 
difference is.

Best regards, Julian

(*) Which may not be what it does tomorrow.

Received on Friday, 15 June 2012 13:50:15 UTC