- From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:21:26 -0700
- To: jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
- Cc: uri@w3.org, ipv6@ietf.org
>...I didn't understand the proposal >assumed additional requirements for URL/URI parsers, so I didn't >understand its usefulness. **If we can allow that**, I see this can >be useful, while it should be minor usage ... Certainly, it's envisioned to be a small niche, which is why I am not ready to push too hard on it. >..."never force >applications to do any additional work to deal with scopes". I think the push against additional work was really about addresses that look (more or less) the same requiring different handling, e.g., an application would have to know that fec0::1 needed a zone ID but 2002::1 did not. Since my proposal uses an explicitly different syntax, and all addresses expressed using this syntax require the zone ID, I *think* that argument doesn't apply. Bill
Received on Friday, 15 July 2005 01:21:33 UTC