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

Re: Percent encoding

From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:33:50 +0100
Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Media Fragment" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7557C21E-D745-494D-A1A7-3E352BB95609@cwi.nl>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>

On  1-Mar-2010, at 03:20 , Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:52:06 +0800, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>  
> wrote:
>> I think we need to prioritize our needs, and then based on that  
>> prioritization decide whether to include quotes for id/track, when  
>> to do percent decoding, etc.
>> Here's a list of issues that I can come up with (unprioritized):
>> a. The MF syntax for queries and fragments should be identical
>> b. The MF syntax should be unambiguous
>> c.  The MF syntax should allow any UTF-8 character in track or id  
>> names
>> d. The MF syntax should adhere to applicable formal standards
>> e. The MF syntax should adhere to de-facto usage of queries and  
>> fragments
>> f. The MF syntax should be as concise as possible, with no unneeded  
>> grammatical fluff
>> Are there any issues I miss?
>> I think my current prioritizing would have b/c/d highest priority,  
>> then a, then e, then f.
> I'm not sure what priority order I would make (maybe b-a-d-c-e-f),  
> but think we only need to discuss it if we actually disagree on some  
> concrete issue.

Fine with me.
Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack
If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma  
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 21:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:44 UTC