W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2014

Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:33:26 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <79943C9E-4CE3-47DF-A9C9-F951A1624E48@gbiv.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
On Sep 11, 2014, at 9:19 AM, 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].

Er, you mean you misread that post.  The IETF has been maintaining a standard
on uniform resource identifiers.  The WHATWG wants to define a standard for
how to parse references within HTML.  Both could coexist, if it were not for
the egos that insist on calling references a URL.  "" is not a URL.

> 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.

Even if that were remotely true (it isn't), there is no evidence that
the WHATWG URL spec is interested in documenting actual browser behavior,
as opposed to some imagined behavior hidden behind contorted English prose
procedural descriptions.  Read the spec and compare for yourself.

> 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).

The most up to date of what?

What has been completely lost in this territorial anxiety debate is
that Anne's URL spec doesn't actually define URLs, and is a truly hideous
example of NIH syndrome.  I find it a complete farce that some folks are
even considering importing that into the W3C process, whether by copy or
by reference; almost as ridiculous as watching the WHATWG's deliberate
political campaign to capture the TAG's membership.

Was this the whole point of that political campaign?  To make it easier
for the TAG to impose awful specs by reference to "living standards"
which are, in truth, not implemented by anyone?  Power corrupts, doesn't it.
I can see why you are now so upset about the W3C trying to push those
same specs through a consensus process.

....Roy
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 19:33:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:05 UTC