- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:14:56 +0200
- To: Darrel Miller <darrel@tavis.ca>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Darrel Miller <darrel@tavis.ca> wrote: > Maybe I am being completely naïve here, but from reading a number of threads > on various mailing lists that are talking about your URL spec, the sticking > point seems to be around your assertion that "The plan is to obsolete the > RFCs ". I believe that from your perspective many implementers will not > need to use anything other than your URL parsing specification and so in > effect obsoletes the RFC. However, I see no need for you to duplicate the > effort of 3986 just so that you can layer some additional constraints on top > of it. And secondly, 3986 needs to remain in order to provide guidelines to > those who choose not to conform to the Web Platform URL Parsing > Specification (forgive me for renaming your spec :-)). 1. The idea that you would just have a few pre-processing steps before entering RFC 3986 sounds interesting, but I do not believe that would actually work. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I am not interested in investigating that direction. I want a single URL standard, not a mash of various complicated documents. 2. My specification will cover more than just parsing (as it already hints at). 3. I will probably add the ability, just like the HTML parser has, to halt on the first error in certain contexts (as some non-browser implementations may wish to do). -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:15:23 UTC