- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:26:24 -0700
- To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Oops, of course, I thought that this discussion was about a > new I-D. BTW, can I now submit the RfC 3986 appendix D.2 > problems as erratum ? > > See also <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.w3c.uri/613>. No, it isn't an error. You are not supposed to use the terms in appendix D for new specifications. They are merely for forward (URI-compliant) interpretation of old pre-3986 specs and thus are intentionally conservative to avoid the creation of bad URIs. > It's all related, I need the opposite of the former <uric>, > because that's the subset of characters where %-encoding is > required for any URI scheme, and Message-IDs in news are in > the same vein as tags or UUIDs. Why don't you simply use the current rules in the body of 3986? Just ignore appendix D for new specifications. This confusion is why I didn't want to include it in the first place. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 19:26:33 UTC