- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:07:34 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <541F3E16.50109@openlinksw.com>
On 9/11/14 3:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > 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 > > > > +1000 ... Amen ! -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 21:07:57 UTC