- From: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:00:29 +0200
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Media Fragment <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Dear Philip, > This is the version I'm looking at: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-media-frags-20100624/ This is the good version to look at. > I will continue to bring up the issue of well-defined processing until > it is resolved. MF is a small spec and it's not difficult to define > achieve interoperability. That means that it should be possible for two > different implementors to read the spec and implement two different > parsers that have the exact same result for all possible input, valid or > not. Without that, the spec shouldn't progress to Last Call. As usual, I > don't care much what spec writing style is used to achieve this, as long > as it is achieved. Thanks for insisting on this point. We will continue to discuss this issue until we got a resolution that satisfies everybody. At this point, we are asking further information from Yves about what the URI RFC already says regarding where pct-encoded is allowed or not. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department 2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France. e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 10:08:53 UTC