[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:31:01 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at 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?


>>>>  I'm not convinced that having two ways of handling essentially the  
>>>> same thing is good.
>>>
>>> It's unavoidable, as the relaxed syntax doesn't work in many cases,  
>>> for instance, when whitespace acts as a delimiter.
>>
>> 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.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/