On 09/14/2016 07:17 PM, Jacob Champion wrote: > On 09/14/2016 06:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com >> <mailto:champio...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> (My goal in asking this question is not to stare and point and >> laugh, but more to figure out whether we are skating to where the >> puck is going. It would be nice for users to know which >> specification StrictURI is being strict about.) >> >> RFC3986 as incorporated by and expanded upon by reference in RFC7230. > > ...plus at least (if I'm understanding correctly) three exceptions ('|', '[', > ']') because of what we consider to be > bugs in popular browsers. > > FWIW, I am +1 to those exceptions because I think it's the pragmatic thing to > do. But based on the linked Mozilla bug > thread, if they have decided to forsake the IETF RFCs and are instead > following a separate "specification" that has a > habit of simply tracking things as they are, there's a decent chance that > those bugs will not be fixed. In which case > StrictURI will never be "strict". > > I think that's bad from a documentation and usability standpoint. If WHATWG > (hypothetically) decided to bless more > exceptions to the RFC, would we follow suit with StrictURI? Is StrictURI > *really* an option to follow the RFCs to the > letter, or is it an option to try to do things as correctly as we can without > breaking major browsers?
I think it should be the later one in this case. I see no real use case for an option that makes it fail with major browsers. Regards Rüdiger
