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

Re: PSA: publishing new WD of URL spec

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 17:07:34 -0400
Message-ID: <541F3E16.50109@openlinksw.com>
To: www-tag@w3.org
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



Received on Sunday, 21 September 2014 21:07:57 UTC

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