[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Anne van Kesteren annevk at opera.com
Mon Mar 23 03:28:58 PDT 2009

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>  
> 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

More information about the whatwg mailing list