On Dec 16, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
change their meaning, breaking the sites, specs be damned. If RFC
3986 defined what to do with non-conformant URIs, we wouldn't have
this issue.
Oh well. Are you really believing this?
RFC2396 and RFC3986 define
Right. We avoid the issue by using a different attribute for the template.
- James
Julian Reschke wrote:
> [snip]
> That being said -- James suggested "template" instead of "action" anyway.
>
> BR, Julian
>
>
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the replacem
On Dec 16, 2007, at 14:21, Philip Taylor wrote:
But the original example had which would avoid that
conflict.
Oops. I missed that.
Would the processing model be that the template attribute overrides
the action attribute in template-aware UAs leaving it to the page
author to provide a se
On 16 Dec 2007, at 14:12, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up
before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in
place of
the form element action attribut
Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the replacemen
On 16/12/2007, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
>
> > http://example.org{-prefix|/|foo}?bar={bar}"
> > method="POST">
> > Foo:
> > Bar:
> >
>
> What's the backward-compatibility story of this feature? (Both
> behavior of URI templa
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
The gist of the idea (which I believe may have been brought up before
but I'm not certain) is to allow the use of a URI Template in place of
the form element action attribute, and to use form elements to provide
the replacement values, e.g.
http:/
> > (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or
> > commuted to the next best thing available under
> RAND
> > terms in the event that there are no
> implementations
> > not known to be encumbered.
>
> The codec required must be specified explicitly by
> name, otherwise the
> online world w
