[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 23 03:25:19 PDT 2009
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
>> 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.
More information about the whatwg