Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:31:01 +0100, Julian Reschke
<julian.resc...@gmx.de> 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?
Because it's preferable to the alternative, which is, leaking out the
non-conformant URI/IRI handling into other places.
Obviously you would first split on whitepace and then parse the URLs.
You can still use the same generic URL handling.
In which case IRI handling should be totally sufficient.
I don't follow. I said "I'm not convinced that having two ways of
handling essentially the same thing is good." Then you said "It's
unavoidable". Then I pointed out it is avoidable. And then you say this.
It doesn't add up.
The issue is that it's *not* the same thing.
BR, Julian
