W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2008

Re: URI Templates: done or dead?

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>
Message-ID: <20080917022839.GE4058@mercury.ccil.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:12 UTC