- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:29:13 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
* Yves Lafon wrote: >(3) is not a URI because the ABNF doesn't allow percent encoding in the >scheme. >But rfc3986 2.4. When to Encode or Decode says: ><< >When a URI is dereferenced, the components and subcomponents > significant to the scheme-specific dereferencing process (if any) > must be parsed and separated before the percent-encoded octets within > those components can be safely decoded, as otherwise the data may be > mistaken for component delimiters. >>> >So far so good. ><< >The only exception is for > percent-encoded octets corresponding to characters in the unreserved > set, which can be decoded at any time. >>> >which is what you are referring to contradicts the fact that >h%74tp:www/example.com/ is not a valid URI The latter is an exception to the considerations for handling percent- encoded octets when dereferencing a URI, but your string is not a URI. If you do not have a URI, then you do not know which parts of what you do have are "percent-encoded octets" in the sense RFC 3986 uses the term, for instance, you do not know where the percent-encoded octets in a PNG image or in a crop circle are, even if you want to read the exception as applying to things beyond "When a URI is dereferenced". -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 1 July 2010 17:29:44 UTC