Re: percent-encoding in tel URIs

Just so you know ....

I believe that erratum is correct and will be approved sooner or later


On Jun 30, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:

> hello.
>
> thanks for the emails regarding my question about reusing parts of  
> the tel syntax. i am not quite sure what all of that means, since it  
> seems that there are issues with the current syntax. 3966 needs to  
> be fixed and there is nothing i could/should reference right now?
>
> the basic idea was that quite a bit of effort went into the tel URI  
> scheme, and that the sms URI scheme should reuse the tel scheme's  
> model and syntax of what a telephone number is. this way,  
> implementations for parsing telephone numbers could be reused.
>
> but: now that you have pointed out the errata, i have looked at  
> these and they turn out to be very relevant for me, because erratum  
> 203 says that
>
> isdn-subaddress      = ";isub=" 1*uric
>
> should be replaced with
>
> isdn-subaddress      = ";isub=" 1*paramchar
>
> looking at the corrected syntax, it seems to me that a literal ","  
> is not allowed to be part of an isdn-subaddress anymore, which would  
> solve my basic problem of whether the sms URI scheme can use a  
> literal "," for separating telephone numbers.
>
> so here is my rephrased question: since "," is not allowed as a part  
> of a telephone number in the telephone-subscriber part of a tel URI,  
> can i use the telephone-subscriber syntax to replace the sms-number  
> production in the proposed sms URI scheme? i just want to make sure  
> that the syntax will be correct.
>
> tel: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3966
> sms: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-sms-uri-15
>
> thanks a lot and kind regards,
>
> erik wilde   tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
>       dret@berkeley.edu  -  http://dret.net/netdret
>       UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)

Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 07:22:40 UTC