Shoot, I don't really mean "must be a valid URL." I mean "must be valid as PART of a URL", I guess. Man, this stuff is confusing to talk about.
The point is that I'm not--and I dont' think anyone else is--suggesting that every single char should be % escaped. Just the chars neccesary for a URL---which include more chars than what is neccesary to make a valid (x)HTML attribute. So I guess really the union of both those sets of chars must be escaped, to make it both a valid xHTML attribute, and a valid portion of a URL. Jonathan On Dec 12, 5:38 pm, "jrochkind" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wait, Eric, if you're saying that you beleive the COinS spec ALREADY > means that you must make your COinS data payload a proper valid URL > string (that is, you must URL-encode : and / as well as &; and further, > you CAN URL-encode any other char you want)---then I think we all (at > least everyone who has commented on this thread so far) agree. > > But that disagrees with your earlier posts on the topic. When you said > you thought it was important to let COinS producers have the option of > not producing Strings that were valid URLs if they wanted. So I'm > confused. (I've started using the cumbersome phrase "Strings that are > valid URLs" in recognition of the point Eric made that "URL-encoded" is > a somewhat ambiguous phrase, since any char CAN be URL-escaped in a > URL, but only certain chars MUST be.) > > The suggestion: > 1. A proper COinS context object string must be a valid URL. Or it is > not a proper COinS string. That means that / and : as well as & must be > encoded. (Any other chars?) > 2. A COinS context object string MAY include URL-style-encoding on ANY > char, as in a URL. So processors/activators should be prepared to deal > with this. > > It kind of seems like everyone agrees with this at this point, so I > don't see what people are arguing about? If both Ross and Eric agree > with these things, then they certainly do understand each other's > positions enough to resolve this particular question(s). > > The only other thing is: > 3. The spec document should clarify both these things. > > If everyone agrees with #1 and #2, I can't see why there would be > opposition to #3. Because there HAS been confusion on this point, > various COinS producers and consumers HAVE been in disagreement about > these things, so it seems pretty indisputable to me that it should be > clarified in the document. > > On Dec 12, 5:19 pm, Eric Hellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > since Ross and I still don't understand each other's positions, I > > think it is premature to "vote" on anything. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gcs-pcs-list" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gcs-pcs-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
