W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Editorial comments on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-03

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:06:13 -0800
Cc: uri@w3.org
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9A3660E4-5E81-11D8-8468-000393753936@gbiv.com>

On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 02:24  PM, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> Section 1.2.1
>  In the bulleted list, there are three bullets. I suggest
>  splitting the first bullet into two:
>    * A URI is a sequence of characters.
>    * Those characters are not always represented as a
>      sequence of octets.

Hmm, I like that less than the current bullet -- your suggestion
makes the first bullet a statement rather than a consideration.

>  At the end of the section, a forward reference to
>  percent escaping as a means of representing
>  characters outside the limited set (as octets) might
>  be useful.


> Section 1.3
>  Although I'm not sure there's much to do about it,
>  I think the discussion of character encoding here
>  might be confusing. There is (1) encoding used
>  to talk about characters in the ABNF and (2) encoding
>  of octets in a URI. I am thinking that using "codepoints"
>  here might have a slight advantage.

Perhaps -- I have added (codepoints) to my earlier fix.

>  Also, the ABNF doesn't use ASCII encoding to talk
>  about all of the characters; in some cases strings
>  are used (e.g,. ":").

Actually, it uses code points -- the strings are merely a shorthand
notation for the sequence of ( uppercase / lowercase ) codepoints.

> Section 1.2
>  I don't think the first paragraph adds much; the
>  text that discusses this in 1.3 is still fresh in my
>  mind.

I consolidated that text into section 2.

> Section 3.5
>  Third paragraph, change "without any implication that the primary
> resource is accessible" to "without any implication that the
>  primary or secondary resources are network-accessible."

I've described that in more detail in my changes yesterday... oops,
I forgot to commit those to cvs.  They are live now.

The new text should be reflected in the webarch document as well.

> 5.5 and 5.1.1
>  Both the ascii art and the title of 5.1.1 refer to
>  "document content." I think it would be more consistent
>  with earlier sections (e.g., 1.2.2) to talk about
>  representation rather than document content.


>  Also, there's a missing ")" after "section 4.4" in 5.1


> Section 7.2
>  Second paragraph includes "especially when it is a number
>  within the reserved space." Where is "the reserved space"
>  defined?

IANA, though I used the wrong name -- they are Well Known Ports.

Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 19:05:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC