On Dec 16, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
change their meaning, breaking the sites, specs be damned. If RFC
3986 defined what to do with non-conformant URIs, we wouldn't have
this issue.
Oh well. Are you really believing this?
RFC2396 and RFC3986 define what a URI is. They do not and don't need
to say anything about things which aren't URIs.
It's been well known for some time that the URI and IRI RFCs do not
correctly or sufficiently describe the way user agents must process
URIs for compatibility with the Web. This is a bug in the RFCs.
Regards,
Maciej
