On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de>
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 in
content (as far as I can tell).
Are you sure browser implementations of feeds reject non-IRIs in some
way? I would expect them to use the same URL handling everywhere.
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?
Don't leak out workarounds into areas where they aren't needed.
I'm not convinced that having two ways of handling essentially the
same thing is good.
It's unavoidable, as the relaxed syntax doesn't work in many cases, for
instance, when whitespace acts as a delimiter.
Obviously you would first split on whitepace and then parse the URLs. You
can still use the same generic URL handling.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
