On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Ian Hickson 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. That is true to the extent that all developers have the same objective but we've already established that there at least two case: a) Products which can assume correct URI (STD 66) syntax and reject errors b) Products which need to handle human mangled input By writing merging (a) and (b)->(a) you make life more difficult and hence error prone for (a). I would suggest that the developers of (b) will be better served by a clear specification of (a) w/o the (b)->(a) concerns because that will improve their ability to validate URIs generated by their logic as well as have meaningful discussions with folks who assume (a).
