- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 19:29:20 -0800
- To: "David W. Morris" <dwm@shell.portal.com>
- Cc: http working group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> On this you are wrong ... See RFC 1866, section 8.2.1. + is clearly
> used to encode spaces:
*sigh* No, RFC 1866 is wrong. The HTML WG has managed to propose
a well-known bug in Mosaic for standardization. So be it.
> unsafe or reserved, I don't care but + isn't safe. If the choice is
> 'reserved', then I believe % should also be 'reserved' as it has
> exactly the same role as + as it is used to encode other
> characters. I see no justification for + to be reserved and
> % unsafe.
The choice of reserved vs unsafe is a question of parsing, not semantics.
A reserved character may appear anywhere "reserved" is allowed in the
URI (which is true of "+"). An unsafe character cannot appear in a URI
except by being replaced by its %hexhex encoding (which is true of "%
and is not true of "+"). The "%" character is thus only allowed in a
URI when it is immediately followed by two hex characters.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92717-3425 fax:+1(714)824-4056
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Received on Sunday, 11 February 1996 19:33:11 UTC