W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > March 2009

Re: draft-duerst-mailto-bis-06: Detailed review of '@' and '+'

From: Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:59:21 -0400
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.uq3to7dy1ejg13@sandra-svwliu01>
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:05:50 -0400, Michael A. Puls II <shadow2531@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:51:43 -0400
> "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I realize the following is malformed and invalid abnf, but I wish the  
>> spec showed *something* like this.
> [snip]
>
> Actually, I think something like this example would be better:
> <http://shadow2531.com/opera/testcases/mailto/mailto_uri_scheme_idea.html>
>
> Take it for what it's worth, but I love the more direct, wham bam thank  
> you ma'am, "here's what you can and can't do and here's how you do it"  
> theme.
>
> But, the main point of that example is there's a list of characters that  
> you don't need to encode and everything else you need to. That list is  
> *so* helpful.
>

I updated that page more to describe a lot of the handling.

As you can see, that's an example of the type of details the spec should cover.

But anyway, I still require clarification on what draft-duerst-mailto-bis says about '@' and '+'.

-- 
Michael
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 19:00:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:13 UTC