- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 07:27:05 +1100
- To: "Kent Watsen" <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>, "art@ietf.org" <art@ietf.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Hi Kent, On Thu, Dec 4, 2025, at 06:03, Kent Watsen wrote: >> URIs are more complicated than your decomposed structure allows for. That's the problem. If you are going to represent a URI, it really has to be a string. > > I believe you, but I'm unsure what I missed in RFC 3986... > > Does this regard the percent-encoded form of a URIs that don't follow > the "normal circumstance" mentioned in the first paragraph here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-2.4? Would it > help for this draft to state that the values MAY be percent-encoded? I was inclined to ask what the "ietf-inet:uri" definition says, but it really doesn't say anything. Which is OK. That section says this: > Once produced, a URI is always in its percent-encoded form. In other words, don't worry about that, because octets that are not in the URI grammar will be percent-encoded by the thing that produces the URI. (If that's you, great. You get to learn how to make a URI. No doubt you will get it "wrong" by some objective measure, but that's OK, because everyone does. The way we cope is that most URI-handling software will either manage or not work. So you can test. That's not a great story, but it's the one we've got.)
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2025 20:27:32 UTC