- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:07:17 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: uri@w3.org
I have an ongoing action [1] to track the integration of Tim Bray's text on URI comparison [2] into RFC2396bis [3]. As far as I can tell, the text in [3] reflects what was contributed in [2]. There is a minor exceptions, where the the revised Internet Draft is more permissive of ./ and ../ segments in absolute URI paths wrt respect to RFC2396 and Roy has made consistent changes to text from [2]. The list of encouraged good practices in [3], section 6.3, differs from that in [2]. The use of UTF-8 as a character-to-octet mapping is strongly encouraged in section 2.5 of RFC2396bis [3], but not mandated (as in Section 6 of [2]). This difference is appropriate since mandating the use of UTF-8 would add a constraint that is not in RFC2396 and could introduce interoperability issues in cases where a different character-to-octet mapping is in use. I'd like to thank Roy and Tim for their work on this. And I'd like to declare my action item [1] on URIEquivalence-15 [4] done. Regards Stuart Williams -- [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/actions_owner.html#SW [2] http://www.textuality.com/tag/uri-comp-4 [3] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-05.txt [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#URIEquivalence-15
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 12:07:33 UTC