On 2012-06-15 15:57, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote:
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).
That was by far not all of it.
Indeed, but we certainly failed to come up with a usable list of things
that need to be addressed.
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.
I gave you an example already. Something that came up recently at
That was an example for a case where you're looking for a error recovery
strategy. The RFCs do not contain this. This doesn't mean they are
incorrect, it just means that the layer they describe doesn't care.
Opera is whether a raw "\" in the query component needs to be escaped.
That's an interesting question, but again it's solely about error
recovery ("\" is invalid in URIs).
More than two slashes following an hierarchical scheme is another. As
I and others explained before, the RFCs leave a lot up to
implementations and that does not match what we need. We could try to
write something on top of those RFCs, but so far nobody has been
successful at that.
Well, maybe it's worth trying. The other strategies that have been tried
haven't resulted in a finished spec, either, right?
Best regards, Julian
