Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 ([e-mail] from September 2012)

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Let's in fact try: Hi guys, we need to fix STD 66 because it doesn't 
> > define error handling.
> 
> Help me, I am just not getting it:
> 
> Why do you insist on 'fixing STD 66'?
> 
> What is the reason you are not willing to reframe the problem to 'fixing 
> how we get from the provided string -the input to the reference 
> construction process- to a STD-66-valid result'?

Because that's not a good way to write specs. Implementors shouldn't have 
to read three separate specs to implement one algorithm. The definition 
for Base64 isn't spread into tree separate RFCs. You don't put the HTML 
parser in a different spec than the HTML elements.

A spec for this kind of thing should define the following:

 - The conformance requirements for authors so that they can use the 
   technology in a manner that avoids likely pitfalls

 - A processing model for each relevant implementation conformance class 
   (software) that defines how you take the input and use it

In the case of these string, that means, to a first approximation:

 - A definition of what the valid syntax of these strings is.

 - A definition of how you get from one of these strings, whether valid or 
   not, to the information you need to process it, in particular, for 
   e.g. strings that reference specific files:
    - the scheme (what protocol you're going to be using)
    - the hostname and port of the remote host
    - the path and query string to pass to that host
    - the fragment identifier

So there should just be one spec, not three (IRIs, URIs, and the error 
handling).

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