- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:23:24 +0100
- To: "URI Interest Group" <uri@w3.org>
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:01:56 +0100, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > 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. I would take the opposite view. If the address is a valid email address according to RFC 2822, then it SHOULD be possible to create a mailto URI for it. It some stupid person chooses a complicated email address with strange characters in it, and wants to publicise it on some website. then he will just have to put up with the ugliness of the URI - he has only himself to blame, especially if he creates it wrong. The vast majority of people do not choose such awkward names. But if you forbid %-encoding, then over-officious software is going to reject perfectly good URIs unnecessarily whilst at the same time more liberal software will happily handle them. Getting the over-officious sites to change their ways if youm later decide to allow them will be difficult. And it is not as if disentangling %-encoding is hard. Every site handling URIs already contains the code to do it. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:15:59 UTC