- From: Joseph A Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:21:25 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Jan 27, 2009, at 8:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Joseph A Holsten wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Julian, >> Everything sounds fine, some questions inline. >> >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> - on the front page, note where feedback should go (IMHO the best >>> place would be the IETF uri-review mailing list) >> I haven't seen any other draft do this, so I'm unsure of where should >> this go. Abstract? uri-review sounds fine. Too bad the place is a >> spam > > Example: <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1- > messaging-05> > (so after the Abstract). Seems fine >> haven: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review > > AFAIK, only the archive is being spammed (and somebody is working on > fixing this). I'm finding http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/ more useful than uri-review, without respect to the spam. > >> ... >>> - "About URIs are always escaped, as per [RFC3986]" - that's kind of >>> misleading; either remove it, or clarify what you mean by that. >> tag URI (RFC4151) says "In the interests of tractability to >> humans, tags >> SHOULD NOT be minted with percent-encoded parts. However, the tag >> syntax does allow percent-encoded characters in the "pchar" >> elements". >> Will that do? > > Yes. I'd just relax the "SHOULD NOT" to something like "is > discouraged". > >> ... > > BR, Julian http://josephholsten.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkl/JnUACgkQrPgSa0qMrmFn9wCgl1ODRKA+Ps0aButyBotx0HYp A0oAn2UBFmj8qjyfqbNo0sGXv7CQDE4M =s4IP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 15:22:09 UTC