On 2012-07-09 16:48, Mike Jones wrote:
HTML5 is not cited because it's a working draft - not an approved standard. In what way
is "the definition of the media type in HTML4 is known to be insufficient"?
People have been successfully implementing form-urlencoding with it for quite some time.
:-) Is there a specific wording change that you'd suggest that we make that doesn't
involve citing a working draft, rather than an approved standard?
For instance, the HTML4 "definition" doesn't even mention what to do
with non-ASCII characters.
I understand that it's not particularly attractive, but citing HTML4
just because it's a "standard" isn't really helpful for people who
actually follow the link and try to understand what needs to be implemented.
I'm not sure what aspect of
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09219.html you feel
hasn't been addressed. The restriction prohibiting colon has been removed from
the ABNF, like you asked. Using form-urlencoding when passing parameters
through HTTP Basic enables a wider repertoire of characters to be used - again,
something you'd asked for.
Sorry, I missed that one; I was looking at the
UNICODENOCTRLCHAR = <Any Unicode character other than (%x0-1F / %x7F)>
where you had asked for a better way to define it, and that's also in
the link I sent.
With respect to the original question: you now say that *all* ABNF
productions define the syntax in terms of Unicode code points. It that's
the case all is well; but I didn't want to propose that because I don't
have sufficient knowledge of the contexts where these protocol elements
are used.
> ...
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
