W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2004

Re: draft-06 plus last-call changes

From: Mike Brown <mike@skew.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:35:34 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200409100035.i8A0ZYpT056807@chilled.skew.org>
To: uri@w3.org

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> it is moving RFC 2396 to Obsolete status.

Thanks, but where is Obsolete status formally defined?
It is not mentioned in RFC 2026 or its errata.

> That means implementors 
> are requested to implement according to the new RFC

Requested, not required...OK.

It's just that in the absence of a formal definition of Obsolete (and maybe I 
just didn't look hard enough for one), the mere declaration that RFC 2396 is 
Obsolete does not imply that much to me for the purpose of updating an 
existing implementation of, say, RFC 2616.

I *think* I am supposed to make it conform to the 2396bis as best I can, but 
I'm just hesitant to assume *anything* without seeing an explicit statement 
(in the spec) to that effect.

> rfc2396bis is
> merely making changes to the documentation of the one URI standard
> that we all know and use on a regular basis, and conforms better to
> the existing implementations than RFC 2396.

I think that depends on which part of the spec you're looking at. Since the 
reserved and unreserved sets changed, I doubt that 2396bis better describes 
current practice for percent-encoding than 2396. But I do see what you mean.
I just wish it were codified.

-Mike
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 00:35:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:34 GMT