W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > January 2007

Re: URI and IRI Templating - encoding defaults

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:21:13 +1100
Message-Id: <DD6DEEFF-2B4B-4ED1-A3C7-8D4DE0F69448@mnot.net>
Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, uri@w3.org
To: Benjamin Carlyle <benjamincarlyle@optusnet.com.au>

That goes too far; after all, the're "URI Templates", and should take  
advantage of URIs. If there's a backwards-incompatible change, the  
result won't be called URIs (see: IRIs), and we can come up with a  
*RI Templates then...


On 2007/01/21, at 3:08 PM, Benjamin Carlyle wrote:

> This actually suggests to me that perhaps no blanket rule should be
> included in the specification. It is simply the responsibility of the
> supporting instructions to construct a valid URL. Encoding  
> ( iprivate /
> iunreserved / ireserved) into the specification ties uri templates to
> the current uri rfc, creating unnecessary coupling.
>
> Even restricting resultant urls to be valid may be overreaching. After
> all, should a browser decide the url isn't valid and stop the
> submission? Shouldn't it just pass the information it doesn't  
> understand
> through and let the server side decide what is valid and what is  
> not? I
> would be as circumspect as possible in the specification as to what
> constitutes valid output.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 21 January 2007 22:20:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:10 UTC