- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:29:46 -0500
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
At 08:17 03/02/18 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: >Sorry, I sent my last message without thinking.... >Of course "." in hex is "%2e" and not "%0a", and > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0232%2ehtml > >works as well as > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0232.html > >I'm still not certain that all URI processing software >in HTTP servers or clients handles hex-equivalence for >non-reserved characters, but I'll have to look harder >for examples. I'm looking very much forward to more reports from you and others. Even if we find an odd case where equivalences such as the above are not maintained, it would probably help a lot if they were, in the true sense of the 'uniform' U in URI. And such cases might safely be declared as a bug. Contrary to namespace equivalence, where all known implementations work codepoint-by-codepoint, and where a TAG finding saying that this is wrong would risk to produce more confusion than architectural consistency, a TAG finding stating that *for purposes of resolution/retrieval*, ~ == %7e == %7E would definitely confirm (or improve if this is still needed) an important point of architectural consistency. And it would also help IRIs a lot. Regards, Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 13:33:50 UTC