[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Mon Mar 23 14:25:21 PDT 2009

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> However, what seems to be more likely is that one tool refuses to fetch 
> the file (because the URI parser didn't like it), while in the other 
> case, the tool puts the invalid URL on to the wire

IMHO this is basically the definition of a standards failure.

> I think this is totally ok

I think considering this behaviour to be ok is basically ignoring 19 years 
of experience with the Web which has shown repeatedly and at huge cost 
that having different tools act differently in the same situation is a bad 
idea and only causes end users to have a bad experience.

> If the consequence of this is that invalid URLs do not interoperate, 
> then I think this is a *feature*, not a bug.

I fundamentally disagree. Users don't care what the source of a lack of 
interoperability is. Whether it's an engineering error or a flaw in the 
standard or a flaw in the content is irrelevant, the result is the same: 
an unhappy user.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list