- From: Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:37:45 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, 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>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
On Oct 16, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Jan Algermissen > <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com> wrote: >> On Oct 16, 2012, at 1:29 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> I'm not arguing URLs should be allowed to contain SP, just that they >>> can (and do) in certain contexts and that we need to deal with that >>> (either by terminating processing or converting it to %20 or ignoring >>> it in case of domain names, if I remember correctly). >> >> I am not understanding your perceived problem with two specs. > > I think your context quoting went wrong. > > >> In addition to that you can standardize 'recovery' algorithms for turning >> broken URIs to valid ones. Maybe with different 'heuristics levels' before >> giving up and reporting an error. > > The algorithm is not for "fixing up". It's for processing URLs, > including those that happen to be invalid. The end result is not > always valid per STD 66. And there lies the problem. Where is the benefit of producing invalid results as opposed to fixing with best effort? What can you do with a result that is an invalid URI? You cannot hand it to any tool that implements the URI spec. And aything you are ever going to do with a parsed-but-invalid URI is treat it as a valid one using a set of assumptions. Why not simply apply these assumptions in the first place and have a valid URI as a result. Much cleaner because the concerns are clearly separated. > > >> Any piece of software that wishes to be nice on 'URI providers' and process >> broken URIs to some extend can apply that standardized algorith in a fixup >> phase before handing it on to the component that expects a valid URI. > > I do not think it makes sense to have different URL parsers (one with > a "be strict" bit works). How you implement that is a detail. If e.g. an HTML broswer intends to apply the fixing algorith it can surely do that as part of the URI parsing. The important part is that the result is a valid URI. > Just like it does not make sense to have two > different HTML parsers in your software stack. I did not say that. Jan > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 12:38:27 UTC