Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > (In this email I will use URL5 as a short for Web Addresses, as that > previously was the URL part of HTML5) This section is to be extracted from HTML5 shortly. I've forwarded your e-mails to DanC, the editor of the Web Addresses spec. Cheers, -

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > Note that the Web addresses draft isn't specific to HTML5. It is > > intended to apply to any user agent that interacts with Web content, > > not just Web browsers and HTML. (That's why we took it out of HTML5.) > > Be care

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > > > As far as I can tell the LEIRI requirements aren't actually an > > accurate description of what browsers do. > > My question was more specific: what are the *techical differences* > betwen LEIRI and Web Addresses? I don't think there's a com

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

2009/3/29 Kristof Zelechovski : > It is not clear that the server will be able to correctly support various > representations of characters in the path component, e.g. identify accented > characters with their decompositions using combining diacritical marks.  The > peculiarities can depend on the

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

It is not clear that the server will be able to correctly support various representations of characters in the path component, e.g. identify accented characters with their decompositions using combining diacritical marks. The peculiarities can depend on the underlying file system conventions. Ther

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

2009/3/29 Anne van Kesteren : > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:01:51 +0200, Giovanni Campagna > wrote: >> >> 2009/3/29 Anne van Kesteren : >>> >>> I'm not sure if you're correct about those differences, but even if you >>> are they are not the only differences. E.g. LEIRIs perform normalization if >>> the

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:01:51 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote: 2009/3/29 Anne van Kesteren : I'm not sure if you're correct about those differences, but even if you are they are not the only differences. E.g. LEIRIs perform normalization if the input encoding is non-Unicode. URLs do not. URLs

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

2009/3/29 Anne van Kesteren : > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:37:19 +0200, Giovanni Campagna > wrote: >> >> Summing up, the differences between URL5 and LEIRI are only about the >> percent sign and its uses for delimiters. > > I'm not sure if you're correct about those differences, but even if you are >

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:37:19 +0200, Giovanni Campagna wrote: Summing up, the differences between URL5 and LEIRI are only about the percent sign and its uses for delimiters. I'm not sure if you're correct about those differences, but even if you are they are not the only differences. E.g. LE

[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI (again)

(In this email I will use URL5 as a short for Web Addresses, as that previously was the URL part of HTML5) As subject says, this is the continuation of the thread about LEIRI vs URL5 archived at , where discussion diverged

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: However, what seems to be more likely is that one tool refuses to fetch the file (because the URI parser didn't like it), while in the other case, the tool puts the invalid URL on to the wire IMHO

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > > However, what seems to be more likely is that one tool refuses to fetch > the file (because the URI parser didn't like it), while in the other > case, the tool puts the invalid URL on to the wire IMHO this is basically the definition of a standards

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Ian Hickson wrote: [cc'ed DanC since I don't think Dan is on the WHATWG list, and he's the editor of the draft at this point] On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: For example, curl will not refuse to fetch the URL http://example.com/% despite that URL being invalid. Should it refuse to?

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

[cc'ed DanC since I don't think Dan is on the WHATWG list, and he's the editor of the draft at this point] On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > For example, curl will not refuse to fetch the URL > > http://example.com/% despite that URL being invalid. > > Should it refuse to? T

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: You are essentially proposing to change existing specifications (such as Atom). I just do not see the point. The point is to ensure there is only one way to handle strings that are purported to be IRIs but that are invalid. Right n

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > > You are essentially proposing to change existing specifications (such as > Atom). I just do not see the point. The point is to ensure there is only one way to handle strings that are purported to be IRIs but that are invalid. Right now, there are a

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:50:46 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: ...and other characters that are not allowed in URIs and IRIs, such as "{" and "}" (which therefore can be used as delimiters). And keeping them invalid but requiring user agents to handle those characters as

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:50:46 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: ...and other characters that are not allowed in URIs and IRIs, such as "{" and "}" (which therefore can be used as delimiters). And keeping them invalid but requiring user agents to handle those characters as part of a URL (after it

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: The issue is that it's *not* the same thing. Well, no, not exactly. But they perform essentially the same task, modulo a few characters. And since one is a superset of the other (as long as URL encoding is UTF-8) I don't see a point in having both. Well, then let's

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:58:59 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Whitespace is a big issue - auto-highlighting will fail all over the place. Auto-higlighting and linking code already fails all over the place due to e.g. punctation issues. A solution for whitespace specifically is to simply forb

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:46:15 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Because it's preferable to the alternative, which is, leaking out the non-conformant URI/IRI handling into other places. Apparently that is already happening in part anyway due to LEIRIs. Modulo the URL encodi

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:46:15 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Because it's preferable to the alternative, which is, leaking out the non-conformant URI/IRI handling into other places. Apparently that is already happening in part anyway due to LEIRIs. Modulo the URL encoding bit (which you can s

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:31:01 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: Well yes, and a subset of those is browser based. Besides that, most feed readers handle HTML. Do you think they should have two separate URL parsing functions? Yes, absolutely. Why

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:31:01 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: Well yes, and a subset of those is browser based. Besides that, most feed readers handle HTML. Do you think they should have two separate URL parsing functions? Yes, absolutely. Why? I'm not convinced

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: I wasn't talking of "browser implementations of feeds", but feed readers in general. Well yes, and a subset of those is browser based. Besides that, most feed readers handle HTML. Do you think they should have two separate URL parsing functions? Yes, absolutely. D

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Anne van Kesteren wrote: Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For instance, I would consider the Atom feed content (RFC4287) as "Web content", but Atom really uses IRIs, and doesn't need workarounds for broken IRIs i

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren wrote: Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For instance, I would consider the Atom feed content (RFC4287) as "Web content", but Atom really uses IRIs, and doesn't need workarounds for broken IRIs in content (as far as I can tell). Are you sure browser imple

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:45:39 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: ... Note that the Web addresses draft isn't specific to HTML5. It is intended to apply to any user agent that interacts with Web content, not just Web browsers and HTML. (That's why we took it out of HTML5.) ...

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Ian Hickson wrote: ... Note that the Web addresses draft isn't specific to HTML5. It is intended to apply to any user agent that interacts with Web content, not just Web browsers and HTML. (That's why we took it out of HTML5.) ... Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For ins

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

2009/3/22 Ian Hickson : > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Giovanni Campagna wrote: >> >> Now I would like to ask: >> are there any major differences that requires the W3C / WHATWG to >> publish an other specification, just for HTML5, instead of just >> referencing the IRI-bis draft or the LEIRI working group

Re: [whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Giovanni Campagna wrote: > > Now I would like to ask: > are there any major differences that requires the W3C / WHATWG to > publish an other specification, just for HTML5, instead of just > referencing the IRI-bis draft or the LEIRI working group note? As far as I can tell th

[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

HTML5 originally included a section about resource identifiers processing. A few days ago that section was extracted into the W3C editor draft of Web Addresses. I noticed it and remembered that I had read once something like that. Precisely, what I once read is , a note