Re: octets <=> ASCII conversion (important)

> However, the comment in my mail at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004Mar/0012.html,
> cited below, and including actual proposed text, does not
> seem to have been addressed, nor did I find any reply saying
> that or explaining why it would not need to be addressed, or
> that (and how) it has been addressed.
>
> So in case you think that this has been addressed, please
> tell me where/how.

Section 2.5 was added to address this confusion.  It is the same
issue that Mike Brown was discussing.  While I understand folks
desire to have a standard give answers to common implementation
questions, it is inappropriate for the standard to define what
is the right implementation when no such definition is needed
for interoperability.

    
http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis- 
05.html#identifying-data

> In case you decided that it does not
> need addressing, please tell me why you think so.

The specific text that you supplied is not always true.
While %31 is equivalent to "1", there is no requirement that
data octets be represented in the URI syntax using the characters
corresponding to their US-ASCII value -- they could just as easily
be encoded in HEX first.  That is up to the URI producer.

>> So please, at the appropriate place, add a sentence saying
>> something like:
>> "Data octets which in the US-ASCII character encoding represent
>> unreserved characters can be represented by the corresponding
>> character. For example, the data octet 0x41 can be represented
>> by "%41" or by "A"; for readability and comparability, the later
>> is strongly preferred."

....Roy

Received on Wednesday, 21 April 2004 04:19:35 UTC