Re: [url] Feedback from TPAC

On 01/11/2014 00:01, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> 3) Explicitly state that canonical URLs (i.e., the output of the URL parse step)
> not only round trip but also are valid URIs.  If there are any RFC 3986 errata
> and/or willful violations necessary to make that a true statement, so be it.

It's not clear to me what it is that might be "willfully violated".

Specifically, I find the notion of "relative scheme" in  [1] to be, at best, 
confusing, and at worst something that could break a whole swathe of existing 
URI processing.  I don't know which, as on a brief look I don't understand what 
[1] is trying to say here, and I lack time (and will) to dive into the arcane 
style used for specifying URLs.

I think there may be a confusion here between syntax and interpretation.  When 
the term "relative" is used in URI/URL context, I immediately think of "relative 
reference" per RFC3986.   I suspect what is being alluded to is that some URI 
schemes are not global in the idealized sense of URIs as a global namespace - 
file:///foo dereferences differently depending on where it is used - the 
relativity here being in the relation between the URI/URL and the thing 
identified, with respect the the where the URI is actually processed.

To change the syntactic definition of "relative reference" to include things 
like file: and ftp: URIs would cause all sorts of breakage, and require 
significant updating of the resolution algorithm in RFC3986 (more than would be 
appropriate for a mere "erratum", IMO).  I'm hoping this is not the kind of 
willful violation that is being contemplated here.

#g
--

Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 19:32:53 UTC