On 2011-06-16 11:20, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
On 2011-06-16 11:14, Julian Reschke wrote:
On the other hand, you're trying to define a URI scheme. If it's
handling conflicts with the base URI spec, that's a bug. Period. You may
*document* that some UAs have this bug, but you can't change it to be
not a bug.
Theoretical purity is not a priority for the specs I edit. Wilful
violations of other specs where necessary are acceptable.
Lachlan, with all due respect, I really do not care what *your*
priorities here are.
If you define a URI scheme, you'll have to be consistent with URI
syntax. There's really no wiggle room except for warning about
implementations that may not do it right.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf