- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:36:43 +0100
- To: uri@w3.org
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > As I said, I don't think there is consensus about the status > of the scheme as you describe it above. Okay, we'll see what happens in and after a future Last Call. > These definitions can be found in section 2 and 3 of the draft. > They imply which characters are allowed, which characters have > to be escaped, and how to construct the resource identifier for > any given source text. Obviously I don't understand it, and don't know how to construct a javascript: URI from a given JS source, or how to implement it. > If it is possible to provide a complete ABNF, it would span > several dozens of pages. As far as the URI scheme is concerned I'd expect a few lines, addressing interesting cases for URI consumers and producers, with some examples. > I don't want to fill out the template *at all* and I've explained > why. It's only a SHOULD, if you have good reasons to violate it it's fine. I didn't find convincing reasons, but of course that's something between you, the URI reviewer, and IANA. Frank oo
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 17:40:30 UTC