- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:25:04 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2014-09-11 18:19, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > On September 11, 2014 at 11:58:58 AM, Julian Reschke (julian.reschke@greenbytes.de) wrote: >>> In which case the WHATWG version wouldn't be "canonical" anymore >> anyway. > > "The proof is in the pudding", as they say. I read a recent blog post that indicated that the IETF failed wrt maintaining the URL specs [1]. I'm optimistic that the WHATWG can handle the task, as browsers are by far the largest and most dependent consumers of URLs of all types. In this sense, the WHATWG URL spec is the most up to date. The bits missing in [1], like registration, can easily be handled in the WHATWG wiki (as is already done for other things). > > [1] http://masinter.blogspot.ca/2014/09/the-url-mess.html "largest and most dependent" maybe, but that doesn't mean that nobody else cares. This is an area where it's not sufficient to reverse-engineer what browsers do and document that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 17:25:47 UTC