Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

list more radical rewrite as a possible outcome #35

Open
masinter opened this issue Dec 28, 2014 · 0 comments
Open

list more radical rewrite as a possible outcome #35

masinter opened this issue Dec 28, 2014 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@masinter
Copy link
Contributor

In 2005, RFC 3986 was the best possible consensus that could have happened at the time. Splitting out IRIs and other scheme definitions was a part of that. The downside of that approach is that RFC 3986 doesn't capture the full definition needed to produce a URI.parse method, and the remaining RFCs never got a critical mass of attention.

Revisiting this in the other direction in 2015 may be in order. Every modern language will have URI.parse as a part of its core runtime library. Everything that is needed to produce such a method should be defined in one specification. New schemes that don't break that definition can certainly be defined, but ones that would break that definition should be pursued in conjunction with an update to the base spec.

Deciding whether new schemes should be, by default, relative or absolute would be the first step. See:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27233

@rubys rubys added the IETF label Dec 29, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants