On 07/14/2012 04:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 12/07/2012 23:34, SM wrote:
Hi Simon,
At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote:
Suggestion:
On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept
another syntax.
On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use
another syntax.
As long as an implementation supports the formal syntax, there is
interoperability. Telling people what not to use sounds appropriate if
there is a good reason to do so. The requirements seem redundant to me.
Also, telling browser implementers what to do has very little chance
of success.
So obviously browser implementers should be involved in this discussion?
We shouldn't be "telling" them, we should be discussing with them.
Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to accept Dave Thaler's
line of argument. The fact that some browsers in the past accepted
a raw % and that IE today accepts an escaped % (i.e. %25) makes it very
hard to suggest a consistent use of % at all. Maybe we just have to
drop this point.
It looks like my suggestion wasn't clear. I too agree with Dave Thaler's
argument. I was building on top of it... Not sure how to explain it or
formulate it otherwise...
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
