Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)

Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> Wed, 24 October 2012 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ian@hixie.ch>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9309511E814B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.538
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h2Akvb4LX2jR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9111E8149 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE0E11805C; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=hixie.ch; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version: content-type; s=hixie.ch; bh=exs+VddM/nrWAle9Bar8YFpxcnI=; b=O7h 5VDtSgKo7RWbHATaf3gEKLYTXfvjsS+KXU6mxHueTBBsN8Tz6oAC2iTBqkKLhPox PLkmT2LKPQB5pKSZA5ZyZm7Q6x4Qm230bvpvbduNP6TulC6S04xkXPyFSC3HdPIo xKv9k2B4VnAs9JByfbv8KZ6Zs3/9rjT8P5qwZTbE=
Received: from ps20323.dreamhostps.com (ps20323.dreamhost.com [69.163.222.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: internal@index.hixie.ch) by homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57ECF118057; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:16:31 +0000
From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDN6+WGkvVC94iiSjB2O+ijGDiweqPfagm6ZTBdLz12_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210240110240.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
References: <50604C1A.7090901@gmx.de> <5060A964.5060001@stpeter.im> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210172354500.2478@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <507F5A7E.6040206@arcanedomain.com> <50856E3C.103@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210221753010.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <0DBC8A11-319C-4120-975E-7E40FD5818BF@gbiv.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222137530.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CA+9kkMDpEZCvcG1DJd=O1qPNV+=+GTBeN+CGndUe51Xym_A9sg@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210232115210.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <15E1D98B-8883-4936-81A9-174E1323683C@nordsc.com> <CAGKvQ5ZV6_GMVgjEezhR-oKqSikxR7GYgacMitbfczmNh725mw@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210232348110.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CA+9kkMDN6+WGkvVC94iiSjB2O+ijGDiweqPfagm6ZTBdLz12_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:37:10 -0700
Cc: Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:16:33 -0000

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Ted Hardie wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > Having multiple specs means an implementor has to refer to multiple 
> > specs to implement one algorithm, which is not a way to get 
> > interoperability. Bugs creep in much faster when implementors have to 
> > switch between specs just in the implementation of one algorithm.
> 
> First, do you have data that supports this assertion?

No.


> Second, multiple folks in this conversation have asserted that the right 
> way to approach this is to have *two* algorithms. The first is "method 
> to get from string to URI"  and the second is "Process URI".

That would be inefficient, so isn't likely to be a solid implementation 
strategy in many environments. I don't see any reason to do it this way.


> It also seems far more likely to me that bugs will creep in from 
> re-defining a known algorithm (the "process URI" bit from the pair 
> above) than from the separation of that from a different operation.

That's what regression tests and review are for. Obviously if we rewrote 
the algorithms and introduced bugs and just left them as is, we'd be 
pretty awfully incompetent. Nobody is suggesting that the work will be 
done before we have reached a point where the new spec is as good or 
better than the existing specs.


> If the results of the rewording would be different operations then, as I 
> have noted before, you really should use different terms and admit to 
> the fork.

There's no desire to make the new spec incompatible with existing 
software. That would not be a useful spec.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'