- From: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:47:40 +0100
- To: URI <uri@w3.org>
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:52:58 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > A note about the direction for URI and IRI: > > There are other uses of domain names in URIs currently; for example, > cid: (content-ID) strings often contain domain names. I'm not sure but > it may be reasonable to *not* allow IRI forms, e.g., require that all > URIs not using scheme://host/path syntax not allow hex-encoded octets > above %7F, for example. That doesn't seem right. A domain name (usually after an '@') in a Content-ID or a Message-ID is just a convention (in fact any meaningless string would do, provided it is believed to be unique). In particular, it is NEVER required to submit that supposed domain name to a DNS query. What IS required is that the cid or mid should always compare equal to other copies of itself, hoverer it or those copies may have been mangled during transmission. Hence encoding it in punycode is never likely to be helpful, but encoding it in hex, even for octets greater than %7F, should always be harmless and easily reversible. This situation could well arise in the case of the news URI scheme, for example. Fortunately, current I18N efforts such as EAI have chosen to retain a strict ASCII syntax for cids and mids, but that might not remain true indefinitely. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 09:48:19 UTC