[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Mar 23 03:46:15 PDT 2009

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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?

Because it's preferable to the alternative, which is, leaking out the 
non-conformant URI/IRI handling into other places.

>>> 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.

The issue is that it's *not* the same thing.

BR, Julian

More information about the whatwg mailing list