Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret p...@w3.org wrote: I would qualify it as ambitious, rather than contradictory. :) Well, you talk both about obsoleting something and aligning with a future version of it. You can't both supplant and build on top of something at the same time. On top of that, the actual model is different, as explained numerous times. Re-aligning the URL specification with RFC3986.next will take time and a lot of effort, especially with the intent of preserving interoperability. It's not really clear to me why we suddenly think this is feasible again. What changed since the last technical thread? Some high-level ivory tower talk between W3C and IETF figure heads? And yes, for the immediate short term, the focus is on aligning the Web implementations with the specification as much as we can. It appears for the short term your focus was on publishing a fork that contains contradictory goals and adds confusion to an already complicated picture. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On 2014-08-28 18:04, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Daniel Appelquist wrote: As you might know, the new charter for webapps includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. What's the purpose of the W3C republishing this spec? W3C-specific note: This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in contemporary Web browser implementations. As a consequence, this specification is not compatible with those RFCs. It is published for the purpose of providing a stable reference for the HTML5 specification and reflecting current Web browser HTML5 implementations. The W3C Technical Architecture Group expects to continue the work on the URL specification and produce a future version that will attempt to re-align the URL specification with an updated version of RFC 3986 while preserving interoperability. Best regards, Julian
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: W3C-specific note: This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in contemporary Web browser implementations. As a consequence, this specification is not compatible with those RFCs. It is published for the purpose of providing a stable reference for the HTML5 specification and reflecting current Web browser HTML5 implementations. The W3C Technical Architecture Group expects to continue the work on the URL specification and produce a future version that will attempt to re-align the URL specification with an updated version of RFC 3986 while preserving interoperability. That's a contradictory goal. Anyway, if W3C actually wanted to help here they would focus on getting implementations aligned with the specification before starting to fork and seed confusion. That's the biggest problem for the web at the moment when it comes to URLs.
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 21:04 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de wrote: W3C-specific note: This specification documents current RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 handling in contemporary Web browser implementations. As a consequence, this specification is not compatible with those RFCs. It is published for the purpose of providing a stable reference for the HTML5 specification and reflecting current Web browser HTML5 implementations. The W3C Technical Architecture Group expects to continue the work on the URL specification and produce a future version that will attempt to re-align the URL specification with an updated version of RFC 3986 while preserving interoperability. That's a contradictory goal. Anyway, if W3C actually wanted to help here they would focus on getting implementations aligned with the specification before starting to fork and seed confusion. That's the biggest problem for the web at the moment when it comes to URLs. I would qualify it as ambitious, rather than contradictory. :) Re-aligning the URL specification with RFC3986.next will take time and a lot of effort, especially with the intent of preserving interoperability. And yes, for the immediate short term, the focus is on aligning the Web implementations with the specification as much as we can. Philippe
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Daniel Appelquist wrote: As you might know, the new charter for webapps includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. What's the purpose of the W3C republishing this spec? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Daniel Appelquist wrote: As you might know, the new charter for webapps includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. What's the purpose of the W3C republishing this spec? quite obviously, to have a reference to a stable document that follows the W3C REC process, while WhatWG documents satisfy neither condition -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Glenn Adams wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2014, Daniel Appelquist wrote: As you might know, the new charter for webapps includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. What's the purpose of the W3C republishing this spec? quite obviously, to have a reference to a stable document that follows the W3C REC process, while WhatWG documents satisfy neither condition Actually, the WHATWG URL standard does have a stable snapshot: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/url/2014-07-30/ -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
Hello URL fans - As you might know, the new charter for webapps[1] includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. With some help from Robin and PLH I've produced a first draft[2] which imports the latest work by Anne on the upstream WHATWG URL spec[3] with a few minimal editorial changes. Also note that the document is licensed as CC-BY. The intention is to keep this version in sync with the WHATWG version of the URL spec. This means that ideally any changes should be fed back through the WHATWG bug tracker[4]. The intention is to follow the model laid down by the DOM spec.[5] It’s my further intention to ensure confusion is minimized by clearly sign-posting in the w3c version that the WHATWG version is the living spec. This version updates and supersedes the previous W3C version published in May 2012[6] and later updated in November 2012[7]. The goal is to move ahead fairly aggressively with the publication time-line for this spec. Please feed back any comments here. Thanks, Dan Appelquist 1. http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html 2. http://w3ctag.github.io/url/ 3. http://url.spec.whatwg.org 4. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=URLlist_id=42864product=WHATWGresolution=--- 5. http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/ 6. http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ 7. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Daniel Appelquist appelqu...@gmail.com wrote: Hello URL fans - As you might know, the new charter for webapps[1] includes a new version of the URL spec. I am acting as editor of this spec. With some help from Robin and PLH I've produced a first draft[2] which imports the latest work by Anne on the upstream WHATWG URL spec[3] with a few minimal editorial changes. Also note that the document is licensed as CC-BY. The intention is to keep this version in sync with the WHATWG version of the URL spec. This means that ideally any changes should be fed back through the WHATWG bug tracker[4]. The intention is to follow the model laid down by the DOM spec.[5] It’s my further intention to ensure confusion is minimized by clearly sign-posting in the w3c version that the WHATWG version is the living spec. Make sure this is informative text. I don't know if the term living spec[ification] has any formal meaning in the W3C. [Correct me if I missed the memo that defines it.] This version updates and supersedes the previous W3C version published in May 2012[6] and later updated in November 2012[7]. The goal is to move ahead fairly aggressively with the publication time-line for this spec. Please feed back any comments here. Thanks, Dan Appelquist 1. http://www.w3.org/2014/06/webapps-charter.html 2. http://w3ctag.github.io/url/ 3. http://url.spec.whatwg.org 4. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?component=URLlist_id=42864product=WHATWGresolution=--- 5. http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/ 6. http://www.w3.org/TR/url/ 7. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/url/raw-file/tip/Overview.html
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On 8/27/14, 4:50 PM, Daniel Appelquist wrote: with a few minimal editorial changes. What are the changes, specifically? -Boris
Re: First Draft of W3C version of URL Spec
On 8/27/14 7:33 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 8/27/14, 4:50 PM, Daniel Appelquist wrote: with a few minimal editorial changes. What are the changes, specifically? The following service indicates only the boilerplate (start of doc through the Status of the Document section) plus a change in the Goals section: http://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Furl.spec.whatwg.org%2Fdoc2=http%3A%2F%2Fw3ctag.github.io%2Furl%2F -AB
