On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:22:40PM +0100, Zefram wrote: > I specifically reject the cut&paste argument in favour > of using unencoded "%": this is a sufficiently rare situation that > convenience really doesn't matter.
Users are extremly unlikely to appreciate the fact that non-global IPv6 addresses look different in URIs than everywhere else. URIs are part of the user interface - I think we win in the long run by simplifying the user interface by being consistent. If scoped addresses are such a rare thing, do not bother to solve the problem. If it is true however that scoped addresses may show up to reach a primary configuration as someone else said, we better make things consistent and convenient to use. (The other option is to standardize on "_" or something else and let the implementations silently accept "%" as well since that makes users happy and reduces the number of support questions. ;-) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
