W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-fragment@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ABNF or code fragments?

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:35:32 +0100
To: "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: "Jack Jansen" <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u8mkxadysr6mfa@nog>
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:56:09 +0100, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
>>> in the foot if they want, but http://www.example.com/foo#%74=1 is just  
>>> _not_ a media fragment URI.
>>
>> It's not *valid* (IIRC, "unnecessary" percent escaping is invalid per  
>> the URI spec) but the current processing rules will handle this case as  
>> percent
>
> Pointer?

Nope, I do not recall correctly, I can't find any such statement in URI or  
IRI.

We can decide for ourselves what is valid. I think it should be invalid to  
use percent encoding where it isn't needed, so that validators will warn  
against using #%74=1 and other stupid things. (But it would still work in  
conforming implementations.)

Percent decoding of name is performed in 3.c of the "parse a name-value  
component" definition:

http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#processing-name-value-components

We could change this to only decode the value, but that would be worse in  
my opinion because it both differs from how query strings are processed by  
web servers and doesn't prevent people from using #t=%31.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 09:36:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 September 2011 12:13:38 GMT