On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Oops, of course, I thought that this discussion was about a > new I-D. BTW, can I now submit the RfC 3986 appendix D.2 > problems as erratum ? > > See also <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/613>. No, it isn't an error. You are not supposed to use the terms in appendix D for new specifications. They are merely for forward (URI-compliant) interpretation of old pre-3986 specs and thus are intentionally conservative to avoid the creation of bad URIs. > It's all related, I need the opposite of the former <uric>, > because that's the subset of characters where %-encoding is > required for any URI scheme, and Message-IDs in news are in > the same vein as tags or UUIDs. Why don't you simply use the current rules in the body of 3986? Just ignore appendix D for new specifications. This confusion is why I didn't want to include it in the first place. ....RoyReceived on Friday, 14 October 2005 19:26:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:11:48 GMT