[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Apr 27 22:18:24 PDT 2009
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Note that the Web addresses draft isn't specific to HTML5. It is
> > intended to apply to any user agent that interacts with Web content,
> > not just Web browsers and HTML. (That's why we took it out of HTML5.)
> Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For instance, I
> would consider the Atom feed content (RFC4287) as "Web content", but
> Atom really uses IRIs, and doesn't need workarounds for broken IRIs in
> content (as far as I can tell).
There are implementations of Atom that treat the URLs therein just like
those in HTML content. I haven't studied existing content to see if this
is required for compatibility, though. I wouldn't be surprised if it was,
since much Atom content is just generated based on content that is
primarily intended for HTML generation.
> Don't leak out workarounds into areas where they aren't needed.
I'd much rather we just had one set of interpretations of URLs, defined in
one place, than the four or more we have now.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg