- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:29:46 -0800
- To: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
- CC: uri@w3.org
Joe Gregorio wrote: > [snip] > We have two choices: > > 1. Define a mechanism that is only guaranteed to meet the UR > syntax (i.e. RFC 3986), and thus potentially generate > URIs that are invalid in some schemes. > 2. Restrict ourselves to URIs of a particular scheme such > as http: or mailto:. > +1 to #1. I think it's perfectly fine to push the burden of validating the URI/IRI output onto applications. > [snip] > 1. Escape all 'reserved' characters except @, :, and / > across every component, realizing > we may not end up with a valid URI. > 2. Escape all 'reserved' characters except @, and :, > realizing that our 'path' example > will then break since '/' will get escaped. > 3. Escape all 'reserved' characters except @, :, and /, > but only allow template variables in path, query and > fragment components. > +1 to #1. Again, it's ok to require applications to validate the template output so producing an invalid URI is acceptable. > == IRIs == > > Just as another aside, I am no longer afraid of IRIs. > Good. If at all possible we should produce just one template spec that covers URIs and IRIs. > == The Algorithm == > [snip] The Algorithm looks good to me. - James
Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 19:30:14 UTC