W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2011

Request for review

From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:25:42 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHhFybrZJC8res4BKkAcPtiCByFzygCyW4KSzkHu9Kzs+h+isA@mail.gmail.com>
To: uri-review@ietf.org
Cc: uri@w3.org
URI scheme name:
URI scheme syntax:
   There was no pack: syntax compatible with STD 66, cf.
URI scheme semantics:
   n/a due to a lack of STD 66 syntax.
Encoding considerations:
   The pack: encoding assumed US-ASCII after un-escaping percent-encoded
   characters in an encapsulated <authority> (4.c in the expired drafts)
   and case-insensitive US-ASCII in the <path> (5.c in the expired drafts).
Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:
   The pack: scheme could not be used as an URI scheme in applications
   or protocols.  Other uses of pack: are noted in the expired drafts.
Interoperability considerations:
   All URI schemes have to follow the generic STD 66 syntax, as that was
   not the case for pack: any "interoperability" would be by the chance
   of similarly broken implementations.
Security considerations:
   The generic and overall URI syntax is specified in STD 66, anything
   else (not limited to pack:) is no URI and could cause havoc, compare
   <uri-review@ietf.org> and <uri@w3.org> mailing lists.
Author/Change controller:
   IESG (the transition from a "provisional" to "historical" status is
   not covered by BCP 35 section 5.3; maybe the pack: scheme could be
   simply identified as "non-URI" and removed from the scheme registry).
   STD 66 (RFC 3986), I-D.shur-pack-uri-scheme-05 (same as -03 and -04).
Received on Saturday, 20 August 2011 07:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC