Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:20:19PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote:
0. Should we solve this problem at all?
[...]
1. Should we proceed using "_" (or some other non-percent character)?
[...]
2. If not, should we proceed using "%25"?
[...]
3. If not, should we proceed using "%"?
[...]
My personal opinions are that we should proceed using "_" (or
some other character), or decide that it's not important
enough. It's worth solving if we can come to consensus on
a lightweight solution; if we decide that we need to update
RFC 3986 then I think the right path is to abandon the work.
(That summarizes as "0. Yes, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. No")
I believe the proper technical solution is option 3 because it
allows for easy cut'n paste. This is what I would implement if
I would have to solve the problem in an ad-hoc way (assuming that
I have access to the URI parser implementation). Since option 3.
is not feasible at the moment and since I believe that the problem
is a marginal one, my answer would be "0. No, 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes".
Although I tend towrads No for Q1, I think we'd probably better do this,
simply so that there is no ambiguity if/when someone decides to implement.
But please don't use underscore. It literally vanishes when a user agent
decides to underline a URL.
(It would be nice if the IETF would have a mechanism to track change
requests so that this issue can be reconsidered whenever the URI spec
gets revised.)
yes it would. the RFC Editor does log errata.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
