- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:28:39 -0400
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Roy T. Fielding scripsit: > > Actually, I thought they were opaque bytestreams wrapped in ASCII, e.g. > > %80 or %FF in a URI should be valid in the resource path, no? > > Yes, Yes, they are valid; no, a URI is not an opaque bytestream wrapped in ASCII. There are only two mentions of bytes in RFC 3986: one that denies that URIs must be byte-by-byte identical to be identical (i.e. they may have different encodings as bytes), and another (irrelevant here) explaining about how bytes in IP addresses are encoded. > so one answer would be to allow percent-encoded-UTF-8 in the > variable names as well. Allowing ASCII-only mantains maximum compatibility across implementations. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan "The exception proves the rule." Dimbulbs think: "Your counterexample proves my theory." Latin students think "'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the rule to the proof." But legal historians know it means "Evidence for an exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from."
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 02:29:21 UTC