I think it would be useful to find a system that requires general IRI syntax to
be more constrained. Of course, individual schemes can constrain their syntax
in a scheme-specific way (making anything that doesn't match the scheme
template invalid-as-instance-of-scheme even if valid-as-IRI). And individual
contexts (like "space separated list of IRIs") can provide additional
constraints ("before adding an IRI to a space separated list of IRIs, replace
all spaces with %20"). But those kinds of rules are layered on top of
3987(bis).
I'd like to talk out some of these things in Atlanta, should we try to make it
a separate (bar) bof, or try to use the IRI working group time to talk about
this?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.i...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 1:00 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Robin Berjon; Anne van Kesteren; p...@w3.org; Peter Saint-Andre
> (stpe...@stpeter.im); Pete Resnick (presn...@qualcomm.com); "Martin Dürst
> (due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp)"; www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URL work in HTML 5
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Larry Masinter <masin...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that's the bigger implication -- the vision that the web supplants
> > all
> other (network) apps; for some systems, "URLs to non-Web things" is an empty
> set.
> >
> > My understanding of Peter's survey of other specs that make reference to
> RFC 3987 was that there weren't any whose implementations relied on anything
> other than the browser to do URL/IRI resolution and processing.
> >
>
> First, can you provide a pointer to the survey?
>
> Second, while there may be systems for which the only handle for URIs
> is the the browser, there are certainly systems for which that is not
> true. To pick one produced close to when URIs became a full standard,
> look at RFC 4088 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4088). I doubt there
> are many browsers which dereference URIs like
> snmp://example.com/bridge1;800002b804616263 with their own handlers.
>
> URIs used internally to systems outside the web may not be easily seen
> in a web-based corpus, but that does not mean that they are not there,
> nor that shifting the parsing rules won't effect them.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
