[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI
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.
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.
More information about the whatwg