On 15/10/2012 17:49 , Ted Hardie wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Robin Berjon <[email protected]> wrote:
URLs to non-Web things (e.g. mailto:, smsto:, tel:, etc.) happen in Web
contexts. Libraries written to process those in Web contexts are likely to
be reused elsewhere. There isn't really an option to have some of this in
Web use cases and something else outside of it. If it's used for the Web, it
*will* leak. Probably a lot, and probably fast.
I agree. But that argues that an xmpp URI seen in a jabber context
and an xmpp URI seen in a web context should be the same; or, to
re-iterate, that a fork would be harmful. Changing the URI parsing in
web contexts only is likely to be problematic because of leakage.
Avoiding that by retaining one way is my personal preference for the
way forward. But if those working on web-specific specs do not agree
and choose to fork, then we *must* mark the difference between the
contexts, or the results will be even worse.
I think that we're in ruthlessly violent agreement here :)
At this point we have to look at what status Anne's work could be
published under. It doesn't have to be a fork, it could simply be
published as The One True Way to parse URLs (after reviews, etc.
obviously). Is that something that could be acceptable?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
