On 2012-06-15 15:41, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote:
The RFCs specify how to parse and resolve. I believe the best way to fill
the gap for browser implementations is to specify the error recovery on top
of these operations, instead of pretending the specs are wrong and rewriting
them.
There's no pretense. We went through this before, including giving
tests and dozen of examples:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Jun/thread.html#msg24
That discussion went nowhere, as far as I recall. In particular it was
claimed that something webkit does is needed for web compatibility but
then we heard that mozilla disagreed (I think it was the special
treatment of "\" outside file: URIs).
The URL RFCs are wrong and monkeypatching them is not something I'm
interested in doing.
Not helpful.
What would be helpful is a clear problem statement. Like "the RFCs force
us to handle this URI in a way that is incompatible with existing
content". I'm sure there *are* problems, but simply writing down what
webkit happens to do today (*) makes it incredibly hard to see what the
difference is.
Best regards, Julian
(*) Which may not be what it does tomorrow.
