(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 will go apart.
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.
form
On 16/12/2007, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 16, 2007, at 05:28, James M Snell wrote:
form template=http://example.org{-prefix|/|foo}?bar={bar}
method=POST
Foo: input name=foo type=input
Bar: input name=bar type=input
/form
What's the backward-compatibility
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
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
On Dec 16, 2007, at 14:21, Philip Taylor wrote:
But the original example had form template 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
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
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
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
