W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: 4395bis ticket 60: Should we recommend using different ABNF rule names to clarify escaping?

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:01:08 -0600
Message-ID: <4E56B814.5060206@stpeter.im>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
CC: public-iri@w3.org
<hat type='individual'/>

On 8/22/11 10:10 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 23.08.2011 2:00, Chris Weber wrote:
>> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/60>
>>
>> Does anyone else have comments on whether to explicitly change rule
>> names or can this be closed as a "won't fix?"
> 
> I personally encountered such issue when writing my 'ftp' URI
> specification, where usual RFC 3986 <segment> allows ";" and it needs to
> be escaped because of the role of delimiter.  However, I suppose this is
> out of the scope of 4395bis, and 'wontfix' or 'invalid' seems fine to
> me.  Let's rely on scheme specs' authors' good taste here.

In the tracker, Larry Masinter commented:

   Whether this is necessary or good advice seems to be too variable to
   warrant explicit advice in the URI/IRI registration guidelines.

   Are there any examples where this kind of renaming wasn't done and
   the results were not clear? Is this advice useful standalone?

   In absence of an example where not doing this has led to problems we
   are marking this as "wontfix".

I agree with Larry and Mykyta here.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 21:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:02 GMT