> In a nutshell, there are two poitions: > > The position I began with ("simplicity") allows in tag URIs a few=20 > special characters allowed by RFC 2822, but no %-encoding and hence no=20 > quotes or "quoted pairs", among other things. This position implies=20 > that e.g. "Fred Smith's uncle!"@example.com can't be used to mint tags,=20 > whereas Fred_Smith's_uncle!@example.com can -- without transformation. > > The position I tried following feedback ("inclusivity") allows=20 > %-encoding. So "Fred Smith's uncle!"@example.com could be used for tags=20 > but it becomes something that 99% of humans wouldn't be able to=20 > formulate correctly unaided: tag:%22Fred%20... > > Maybe my experience is unusual but I never encounter email addresses=20 > using the new freedoms allowed by RFC 2822 -- which has been around=20 > since 2001. So it's hard to argue strongly for "inclusivity" -- which,=20 > in addition, (a) turned out to add significant complexity to what is=20 > otherwise simple syntax, and (b) is only "inclusive" if you can (operate=20 > a program to) correctly transform your email address. > > On balance, I'm inclined to follow my original advice -- and now Etan's=20 > -- and go for "simplicity". > > Sandro, what do you think of all this? Given that it's possible to include %-escapes later and not really possible to remove them later if they are allowed now, I'm inclined to go with the "simplicity" approach for now. I have to admit, though, that I don't really know much about the politics of these extended e-mail address characters. -- sandroReceived on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 17:02:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:47 UTC