- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:46:53 -0500
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Grosso, Paul scripsit: > Given the productions, it looks like an <NSS> could consist > of "?type=blue;etc." (without the quotes), so again I see > nothing in 2141 preventing a URN-schemed URI from having > the optional query part, but I wonder what others think. Section 2.3.2 of 2141 says: RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore, these characters are RESERVED for future developments. Namespace developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character. And RFC 2119 defines SHOULD NOT thus: 4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label. So I'd say you need some pretty strong justifications before creating URNs with query parts. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan I must confess that I have very little notion of what [s. 4 of the British Trade Marks Act, 1938] is intended to convey, and particularly the sentence of 253 words, as I make them, which constitutes sub-section 1. I doubt if the entire statute book could be successfully searched for a sentence of equal length which is of more fuliginous obscurity. --MacKinnon LJ, 1940
Received on Friday, 5 January 2007 16:47:12 UTC