- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:30:55 +0200
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "Peter Saint-Andre (stpeter@stpeter.im)" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com)" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Martin Dürst (duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp)" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On 15/10/2012 17:49 , Ted Hardie wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >> URLs to non-Web things (e.g. mailto:, smsto:, tel:, etc.) happen in Web >> contexts. Libraries written to process those in Web contexts are likely to >> be reused elsewhere. There isn't really an option to have some of this in >> Web use cases and something else outside of it. If it's used for the Web, it >> *will* leak. Probably a lot, and probably fast. > > I agree. But that argues that an xmpp URI seen in a jabber context > and an xmpp URI seen in a web context should be the same; or, to > re-iterate, that a fork would be harmful. Changing the URI parsing in > web contexts only is likely to be problematic because of leakage. > Avoiding that by retaining one way is my personal preference for the > way forward. But if those working on web-specific specs do not agree > and choose to fork, then we *must* mark the difference between the > contexts, or the results will be even worse. I think that we're in ruthlessly violent agreement here :) At this point we have to look at what status Anne's work could be published under. It doesn't have to be a fork, it could simply be published as The One True Way to parse URLs (after reviews, etc. obviously). Is that something that could be acceptable? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 16:31:11 UTC