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

[Anne van Kesteren <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, David Sheets <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Ian Hickson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> No, Anne hasn't finished defining conformance yet. (He just started
>> today.)
>
> This is a political dodge to delay the inevitable discussion of
> address space expansion.
>
> From what I have read of WHATWG's intentions and discussed with you
> and others, you are codifying current browser behavior for
> 'interoperability'. Current browsers happily consume and emit URIs
> that are invalid per STD 66.

Correct, that does not mean valid input is similarly relaxed. That is
also not the case for HTML for example. Literally anything produces a
tree of sorts, but far from all input is considered valid.


> <http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#writing> presently says:
> "A fragment is "#", followed by any URL unit that is not one of
> U+0009, U+000A, and U+000D."
> This is larger than STD 66's space of valid addresses.

I aligned it with IRI now, apart from private Unicode ranges. Not
really sure why we should ban them in one place and not in another.


We discussed how to write the algorithms on the WHATWG list before and
again I challenge you to write out your approach and convince the
world it's better. I'm not interested in doing that work for you.


-- 
http://annevankesteren.nl/