Re: [apps-discuss] presumption that RFC3986 is correct

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

On 03/01/2015 13:09, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 01/03/2015 07:10 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>
>> 3. Where there is divergence between implementations and RFC3986, these
>> indeed should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but with (IMO) the
>> presumption that RFC3986 is correct.  I.e. it is for those who think
>> there is a problem with RFC3986 to make the case.
>
> You ask me to presume that RFC 3986 is correct.  That's a big ask. Particularly
> given that there is no clear path provided for updating RFC 3986.  For context,
> that's a decade old spec that I did not participate in the development of, and I
> have clear data that shows that popular parsing libraries -- client, sever, and
> everywhere in the middle -- don't implement.

Presumption:  "An idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability"
-- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/presumption

(Note: not "assumption".  I mean like "presumption of innocence")

For precisely the reasons you state (i.e. it's been around and in use for a 
while, and it has been the primary reference source for implementers who care 
about standards) I don't think it's a big ask.  But if you feel differently, 
then so be it.

#g
--