[whatwg] [URL] Starting work on a URL spec

Bjartur Thorlacius svartman95 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 4 17:09:16 PDT 2010

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:21 AM, bjartur <svartman95 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/25/10 8:57 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
> >> It may not be an _html_ interoperability problem, but it's certainly a
> >> _web_ interoperability problem.
> >
> > It's a question of how HTTP messages are encoded (and in special the enco=
> ding of the IRI).
> > WHATWG does not specify HTTP, these concerns should be directed to IETF.
> There are various ways to spec lawyer things so you can make this work
> appear to be the responsibility of various folks.  The work needs to
> be done.  I'm inclined to do the work first and worry about what >
organization (if any) has "jurisdiction" later.
Yeah, true. I've been through a repetive "ask the county" "ask school
authorities", "ask the county" when asking my school to implement a
SHOULD from national gov. *shrugs*

But really, you should discuss this with the HTTP WG of IETF by raising
the issue in <http-wg at hplb.hp.com>. I recommend searching the archives,
http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/hypermail, for counter-arguments
before posting as this issue has probably be raised before. Then
someone should fork RFC 2616 (or the latest working draft, if there's
a current one).

Patching the RFC == doing the work (good lucking getting consensus on
your side if you don't provide rationale, don't defend your decisions
and ignore the IETF though)

More information about the whatwg mailing list