On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:50:07 -0700, Julian Reschke <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2011-11-04 16:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The outcome you sketch will also result in all other W3C specifications
to be implemented by browsers (and even HTTP if it were to be defined in
a non-fiction manner) depend on HTML for its definition of URL
processing.
Please stop the "fiction" rhetoric. There's also a lot of fiction in
HTML5 (such as requiring rewriting of \ for all URI schemes), and I
don't see you arguing about *that*.
I think it only rewrites it for a certain class of URL schemes, but the
details of URL processing are besides the point here. The point is that
URL processing should be uniform. What the exact details of URL processing
should be is indeed not completely figured out just yet, but it is clear
that the IETF specifications on the matter are fiction.
I do agree that URIs leak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can
have the same processing requirements everywhere. For instance, there
are cases where whitespace acts as a delimiter and thus will not be
accepted as URI character, no matter how much you want it to.
You keep bringing this example up and I will remind you once again that
obviously you would have to split on whitespace characters first in such
cases. This has does not affect uniform URL processing in the slightest,
it just means we should either require whitespace characters in URLs to
always be escaped, or require whitespace characters in URLs to be escaped
in cases where URLs are whitespace separated.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
