On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 20:42 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The only things that implementations can do that JS can't is:
>> * Implement new protocols. I definitely agree that we should specify a
>> jar: or archive: protocol, but that's orthogonal to whet
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On 03/05/2013 21:05 , Florian Bösch wrote:
>>>
>>> It can be implemented by a JS library, but the three reasons to let the
>>> browser provide it are Convenience, speed and integration.
>
RL specification. By unnecessarily coupling parsing,
normalization, and relative reference resolution, implementations
conforming to only the WHATWG URL specification cannot offer
developers control over the level and type of normalization nor the
ability to manipulate relative URIs without resolving them. Humanity
deserves a better foundation on which to construct algebras over its
global namespace.
As for speedy deployment, I would rather start on the path toward
correct, consistent, and powerful pattern matching than see something
rushed into standards due to feature anxiety. 3 or 6 more months to
get this language right is a constant factor on a potentially
unbounded technology lifetime.
I hope you've found this design proposal stimulating and I warmly
welcome any and all constructive (or destructive) response.
Happy Holidays,
David Sheets
