Yes, you need to percent encode the values in the context object. That's the E in KEV. According to the current URI RFC, you need to percent encode "/" and ":" . However,some library URLEncode functions in the real world are lax about encoding "/" and ":" because additional knowledge of URI type is needed to correctly accomplish the correct encoding.
I will change the "brief guide" pages on the ocoins.info site to reflect this clarification; I will change the examples so they are strictly to spec. Eric At 10:38 PM +0000 12/12/06, jrochkind 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. >> -- Eric Hellman, Director OCLC Openly Informatics Division [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2 Broad St., Suite 208 tel 1-973-509-7800 fax 1-734-468-6216 Bloomfield, NJ 07003 http://openly.oclc.org/1cate/ 1 Click Access To Everything --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
