On 14/07/2012 15:39, Simon Perreault wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but I think that's outside the scope of the present draft.
I understand that there is forum for such discussions over in
W3C-land.
>
>> 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...
I think your suggestion was clear, just not (IMHO) a useful thing to
put in an RFC.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
