Re: Comments on draft-fielding-uri-rfc2396bis-07

On Nov 1, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> I'm concerned about some provisions of the draft which seem to
> contradict one another and existing practice, specifically
> regarding mailto URIs and the (RFC [2]822) special character
> '@', which is also a URI reserved character.

Which is simply saying that the reserved character has the same
meaning as the data character in mailto because '@' is not allowed
as data in the mailto syntax (i.e., it is only allowed to be the
reserved delimiter between mailbox name and mailbox host).

The fact that the generic syntax considers them to be two different
URIs does not prevent the mailto scheme from declaring they are the
same, since that is something scheme specs can do.


Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2004 07:55:59 UTC