16.06.2011 12:35, Julian Reschke wrote:
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.
Please note that we're trying to produce the specification of the scheme
which is used internally by the browsers. Thus, it is almost impossible
to consider all existing behavior of all existing browsers. In order to
avoid such situation as we currently have with Gecko, when an
application is known to fail to satisfy one of the regulations of the
Standards Track document, I think we could make the document
Informational, which will specify "the most common" practice while
mentioning some other "non-common" behavior. In this way we will fail
to "standardize" the scheme, but at least won't create a lot of
conflicts, which, IMO, is more important.
As for the normalization of the about URIs. They are a subject to RFC
3986, being URIs, and are a subject to its normalization rules. Making
an exception for them isn't an option, I think.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf