Re: URI and IRI Templating - encoding defaults

That goes too far; after all, the're "URI Templates", and should take  
advantage of URIs. If there's a backwards-incompatible change, the  
result won't be called URIs (see: IRIs), and we can come up with a  
*RI Templates then...


On 2007/01/21, at 3:08 PM, Benjamin Carlyle wrote:

> This actually suggests to me that perhaps no blanket rule should be
> included in the specification. It is simply the responsibility of the
> supporting instructions to construct a valid URL. Encoding  
> ( iprivate /
> iunreserved / ireserved) into the specification ties uri templates to
> the current uri rfc, creating unnecessary coupling.
>
> Even restricting resultant urls to be valid may be overreaching. After
> all, should a browser decide the url isn't valid and stop the
> submission? Shouldn't it just pass the information it doesn't  
> understand
> through and let the server side decide what is valid and what is  
> not? I
> would be as circumspect as possible in the specification as to what
> constitutes valid output.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/