Re: Structured Headers: URI type (#782)

["Poul-Henning Kamp" <[e-mail]>]

--------
In message <[e-mail]>, Julian Reschke writes
:
>On 02.05.2019 08:19, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>> I really dont have anything to add to what I said a month ago.
>
>What I was referring to was the confusion about the syntax of the Link
>header field.

It didn't change my analysis, so I didn't specifically reply to that.

>> Second,  If demarcating URIs in SH was important, somebody would
>> surely have spotted the deliberate mistake in the strawman syntax
>> I proposed a month ago ?
>
>I don't accept that as a serious argument.

It is nontheless a weighty part of my reasoning:  We have worked
on this spec for 30-ish months, URIs came up only two months ago
and nobody has paid the discussion much if any attention.

That doesn't communiciate "Important Oversight in Draft" to me.

>Once again, please let's argue based on facts, not opinions. Unless you
>can prove that it'll take months to add this.

We would have to agree on a syntax, and if you think RFC3986 and
UTF-8 can be decided on 'facts not opinions' I have a cheap DIY kit
for a bikeshed I can sell you.

Once we have painted that, we need to write the text, and the parsing
algorithem, issue an new rev the draft, and wait for weeks before
WG last call, and then we're in the middle of summer vacation land.

QED.


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[e-mail]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.