- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 16:50:51 +0200
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 2012-05-17 16:26, Simon Sapin wrote: > Le 17/05/2012 12:37, Julian Reschke a écrit : >> On 2012-05-17 12:12, Simon Sapin wrote: >>> RFC 3986 (the latest on URIs) only uses a subset of ASCII characters. >>> Everything else is invalid/illegal, including all characters above >>> U+007F. >> >> ...because characters above U+007F are not ASCII characters. > > > Yes of course. I only wanted to point out that it is easy for authors to > write something that is not valid according to RFC 3986. Ack. I just wanted to clarify because there are still people out there believing in the existence of ASCII characters beyond U+007F :-) >> Also, my understanding is that HTML5 doesn't make anything valid that is >> invalid as IRI. > > If I read correctly, compared to URIs, IRIs "only" add non-private > non-ASCII codepoints to the list of unreserved characters. In HTML5 on > the other hand, every codepoint that is not reserved or '%' is > unreserved. For example '>' is valid in the later but not in the former. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987#section-2.2 > http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/urls.html#parsing-urls That's the parsing section. See <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/urls.html#terminology-0>. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 14:51:51 UTC