W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > May 2013

[Bug 21902] New: #url-code-points: Add notes that points out the need/lack of need to escape certain code points

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 12:47:50 +0000
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-21902-2495@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21902

            Bug ID: 21902
           Summary: #url-code-points: Add notes that points out the
                    need/lack of need to escape certain code points
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: WHATWG
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: PC
               URL: http://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-code-points
                OS: Windows 3.1
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: URL
          Assignee: annevk@annevk.nl
          Reporter: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
        QA Contact: sideshowbarker+urlspec@gmail.com
                CC: annevk@annevk.nl, mike@w3.org,
                    public-html-admin@w3.org,
                    public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
                    shadow2531@gmail.com, xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no

The #url-code-points paragraph should be annotated with more notes that point
out important implications and important details related to the characteds
included/excluded in the list of URL code points.

I propose that you consider clarifying the motivation for the current note (1)
plus add 2 more notes (2),(3) and conisder a fourth note (4):

(1) The #url-code-points paragraph is already accompanied with a note about URL
parser’s behavios, whose relevance to URL writing is unexplained. That these
code points does not need escaping is obvious from their inclusion in the code
ranges list, and that they are escaped by the URL parse, should have little
bearing with regard to authoring, no? Please consider a hint about why you
wanted to point this out.

(2) Add a note that points out that code points *not* listed amongst the URL
code points, need to be escaped. Feel free to list these code points (all of
them) but do at any rate at least explicitly mention common code points in need
of escaping such as U+0009, U+000A, and U+000D - and please include their
Unicode names as well, to help readers! (The '#' seems to belong in this
category, whenever its 'fragment semantics' should be escxape, belongs here as
well, may be.)

(3) Add a note about which of the ‘special characters’ that *are* listed, need
to be percentage-encoded whenever their URL specific functions need to be
escaped as well. This includes characteres such as ?, / etc. (And if escaping
is not necessary for some of these special chaaracters, then that is unexpected
as well, and thus ought to be pointed out.)

(4) Consider adding note about format specific considerations. E.g. the need to
escape < and & in XML.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:47:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:23 UTC