Hi Frank,
Thanks for the feedback. Responses below.
On 29/11/2011, at 8:23 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Hi, that's an important and good draft. Some editorial nits:
>
> In section 2.1 you use CTL, DQUOTE, and SP in a comment.
> Please add these terms to the ABNF imports in section 1.5.
I'm -0 on this, as they're informative, whereas 1.5 is normative.
> In section 1.3 you mention WSDL, WADL and OpenSearch.
> Please add informative references and expand the acronyms.
In SVN.
> Please update the TUS reference to 6.x. There are no
> changes wrt the concepts used in this draft (stability of
> non-characters, etc.), but I think UTR #15 is an integral
> part of TUS since 5.0 (?)
In SVN.
> In section 3.1 you write:
>
> | If the literal character is allowed anywhere in the URI
> | syntax (unreserved / reserved / pct-encoded ), then it is
> | copied directly
>
> Do you mean "is allowed in the given part of the URI" here?
> What I have in mind are, e.g., %x5B and %x5D in a query or
> fragment. By definition in 2.1 these are "literals", but
> have to be percent-encoded n STD 66 queries or fragments.
Not sure what you're saying here; the URI escape syntax is % HEXDIG HEXDIG. If
the literal string "%x5B" occurs in a template, it'll be copied into the
result, since it looks like a percent-encoded ("%x5") followed by a "B". If the
literal character "[" occurs in a template, it'll also be copied into the
result, since that's part of reserved (thanks to gen-delims).
The intent here is definitely for a processor NOT to need to know what part of
the URI it's in, since templates can make this ambiguous.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
