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 replacement values, e.g.
<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 story of this feature? (Both
behavior of URI templates in legacy browsers and ensuring that
existing content doesn't use braces.)
Braces are not allowed in URIs (in case somebody forgot :-). That's
exactly why URI Templates can use them.
There are sites that rely on braces in URIs. You can't just go and
No, they rely on user agents not checking for syntactically correct
URIs. They aren't using URIs.
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 what a URI is. They do not and don't need to
say anything about things which aren't URIs.
So, if at all, it would be the job of the HTML spec to say what to do
with pages that use non-URIs where URIs are expected.
That being said -- James suggested "template" instead of "action" anyway.
BR, Julian
