Hello Roy, At 05:58 05/11/08, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >On Nov 7, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Martin Duerst wrote: >> In the latest version of the draft, v1. is used. I think my >> original proposal was to use v6., because we are talking about >> IPv6. Roy, others, what was the original intention for the vX. >> syntax? IP version, or just a sequential id? > >v1 should be used. This is the second IPv6 form and there may >be others in the future -- the v has nothing to do with IPv. Thanks for this clarification. Sorry I got this wrong. >> The URI community has a lot of experience with URIs leaking >> (the first experience was that URIs themselves were not >> intended for end-user consumption). > >What? Of course they were intended for user consumption -- where >on earth did you get that idea? There are whole sections on >transcription in the URI spec. Well, I have to admit that I got that from Tim Berners-Lee himself. He was probably talking about the time around 1990 or even earlier, long before there was an URI spec. Regards, Martin.Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2005 10:26:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:48 UTC