- From: Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:52:28 -0400
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On 10/5/06, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi Joe/Mark/Marc/David, > > I think this goes into the right direction. Congratulations. Thanks! More responses inline. > The main issue I see is that the spec doesn't seem to have a position on > what to do with values that contain non-URI friendly character > sequences. For instance, in > <http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-00.html#rfc.section.4.2.p.2> > you say: > > "If the value of a template variable would conflict with a reserved > character's purpose as a delimiter, then the conflicting data must be > percent-encoded before substitution." > > However, in > <http://bitworking.org/projects/URI-Templates/draft-gregorio-uritemplate-00.html#rfc.section.4.3> > we see: > > +++++++++++ > The following are examples of URI Template expansions that are not legal. > > Name Value > ------------------------------------------------------------ > a fred barney > b % > > The following URI Templates are expanded with the given values and do > not produce legal URIs. > > http://example.org/{a} > http://example.org/fred barney > > http://example.org/{b}/ > http://example.org/%/ > +++++++++++ > > ..although I would have assumed that "http://example.org/{b}/" should > have been expanded to "http://example.org/%25/" according to Section 4.2... This has been a long running part of the discussion and any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Here is a quick synopsis of the problems: 1. What about the character encoding of non-ascii characters? Do we force UTF-8? 2. What about double escaping? Given: a none%20of%20the%20above Should the substitution be: http://example.org/{a} http://example.org/none%20of%20the%20above or http://example.org/none%2520of%2520the%2520above 3. What about 'reserved' characters? Given: q hullo#world Should the substitution be: http://example.org/{q} http://example.org/hullo#world or http://example.org/hullo%23world > My other feedback is mainly editorial/formal...: I will fold this feedback into what will become -01. > > Content: > > - Section 4.3: in the examples: "scheme" != "schema" Fixed. > Editorial: > > - Superfl. whitespace in "machine- readable" and "well- known" > Fixed. > - Spell out "interoperability" instead of "interop" Fixed. > > - Outdated references RFC2234 (-> RFC4234) and RFC2717 (-> RFC4395) Fixed. > > - In first sentence of Section 4, the internal ref seems to lack a ", > see ..." Fixed. > - when citing RFC3986, it would be nice when the concrete section number > was given (several places) I will have to go back over that in detail later. > > - Section 4.3: maybe make that use an xml2rfc texttable element Ooh, toy surprise! I didn't know xml2rfc could to that. Adopted. > > Formal: > > - I think the xml2rfc docName shouldn't contain the extension "txt" Fixed. > > - I've never seen "individual" as an org name in an IETF document; > leaving it out instead seems to be the agreed-upon way to do it... Fixed. (I had previously tried to drop the organization element but found that that caused and error.) > Best regards, Julian Thanks! -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2006 14:52:35 UTC