[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

[Anne van Kesteren]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> 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).
>>  Are you sure browser implementations of feeds reject non-IRIs in some  
>> way? I would expect them to use the same URL handling everywhere.
>
> I wasn't talking of "browser implementations of feeds", but feed readers  
> in general.

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?


>>> Don't leak out workarounds into areas where they aren't needed.
>>  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.


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