- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 14:35:00 -0700
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
That's correct. By "this working group," I meant http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/ The IRI working group at the IETF appears to have slightly different goals than I do. However, Peter suggested that we try to coordinate because the topics are quite similar. Adam On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com> wrote: > Thomas Roessler sent me an important clarification: I had just assumed that > a mailing list named public-iri@w3.org would be for a W3C interest group, > but the mailing list description clearly says: > > "This is the public mailing list of the IETF IRI Working Group. The Working > Group will update the IRI document; see > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri for charter, scope, work items. : > > So, my note was correct on a narrow reading, but it missed the important > point that Adam is in fact talking about the IETF IRI Working Group. Thank > you, Thomas, for the clarification. > > Noah > > Noah Mendelsohn wrote: >> >> I believe the attached message from Adam Barth to the public-iri work is >> directly pertinent to the TAG's interest in IRI and URI parsing, and in >> particular to our ACTION-448 [1]. Note that, in Adam's email, the sentence: >> >> "Peter is encouraging me to coordinate my URL work with this working >> group." >> >> Refers not to the TAG, but to the public-IRI mailing list community. At >> least, that's my interpretation. >> >> Thank you. >> >> Noah >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/448 >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Progress on URL spec >> Resent-Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 04:22:34 +0000 >> Resent-From: public-iri@w3.org >> Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:21:28 -0700 >> From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> >> To: public-iri@w3.org >> CC: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> >> >> Hi IRI folks, >> >> Peter is encouraging me to coordinate my URL work with this working >> group. I'm a bit skeptical, but I'm willing to give it a try. >> Currently, the document I'm editing is available on github. If >> coordination with this working group seems to be going well, I'll move >> it to an Internet-Draft. >> >> As background, my goal with the work is to produce a precise >> specification that describes how browsers ought to process URLs they >> find in HTML documents. In particular, the document will describe how >> to parse an absolute URL and how to resolve a string relative to a >> base URL, including canonicalization. >> >> The way browsers process URLs is largely constrained by compatibility >> with existing web content. You might find some of the things they do >> gross and disgusting, but editorializing about the relative merits of >> that behavior is not particularly helpful at this time. >> >> At the URL below, you can find a snapshot of the document. I believe >> this document accurately describes how browsers parse "hierarchal" >> URLs, such as those with the http, https, and ftp schemes: >> >> >> http://github.com/abarth/url-spec/raw/830fe35e0db8db30b5bd43a24a802ab3f4eec8b6/drafts/url.txt >> >> If you believe the document is inaccurate, your feedback will be more >> influential if you provide an example URL and an example browser which >> you believe behaves differently than what the document describes. >> Also helpful are pointers to test suites that I can run on various >> browsers to learn about their behavior. >> >> At this point, I'm not accepting editorial feedback on this document. >> There's a mountain of editorial work to do, but I'd like to get the >> nuts and bolts down first. In particular, discussion of whether to >> present the requirements in terms of an algorithm or a set of >> declarative rules is not particularly helpful at this time. >> >> Kind regards, >> Adam >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2010 21:36:06 UTC