RE: x-www-form-urlencoded

>>> Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com> 06-Feb-01 5:36:56 PM >>>

>The wording could no doubt be clearer, but one issue 
>in our published draft is that the urlencoding specification 
>is 'almost-but-not-quite' conventional urlencoding. 
>The main change is that slashes are placed in the field names,
>like "/PersonName/PersonTitle=Mr"

Right... the document could make it clearer that the question is over
the extra contextual information.


>Would you consider your three arguments to apply 
>even to our modified urlencoding?

I don't see any major problems with your urlencoding scheme.


>Do you forsee any compatibility problems with existing 
>form processing?

Forms don't expect to see a "/" do they. But that's livable with I
feel (it won't take long to convert a script or program to handle the
contextual information).


>Would "conventional urlencoding" (as implemented in 
>browsers today) be preferable?

No. The proposal made in the document pushes us forward without
breaking our legs.

It's fine.



Nic

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 13:17:13 UTC