IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 23 October 2012 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 2C3A921F8923 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:26:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.394
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.394 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.795, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 fgr-wcgKNbPn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 46AEF21F84C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2012 06:26:56 -0000
Received: from p5DD95D63.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.93.99] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 23 Oct 2012 08:26:56 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX197jbFoT3x71TtacqL6oeFIS/HQGbgeuG1WrAgLSC Go7uHuOGYyNpMi
Message-ID: <508638AF.4060307@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:26:55 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Subject: Re: [whatwg] New URL Standard from Anne van Kesteren on 2012-09-24 (public-whatwg-archive@w3.org from September 2012)
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> <5085C4BA.2030505@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222220510.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CAHBU6is8LNZ7Rq-vwLuOm+8ThKB9c=QPwbUfQwDQD5bDPjtf7w@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222320070.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <09DC68AA-2DAD-4CB1-9CA9-799AF12B7BE2@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222337520.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <D9485C0B-E3DA-4B51-9A25-9EAB018C1951@mnot.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222359080.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1210222359080.2471@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
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: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:26:59 -0000

On 2012-10-23 02:05, Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
> I suspect it will break nothing, but I guess we'll find out.
>
> I don't really understand how it _could_ break anything, so long as the
> processing of IRI and URIs as defined by IETF is the same in the WHATWG
> spec, except where software already differs with the IETF specs.

Define "software". *All* software? How do you test that?

> Do you have a concrete example I could study?

Do you?

This brings me back to something I've been asking for many times: a 
*concrete* list of things that are "broken" in RFC 3986 (as opposed to 
be "undefined").

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email