On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:20:19PM -0800, Bill Fenner wrote: > 0. Should we solve this problem at all?
[...] > 1. Should we proceed using "_" (or some other non-percent character)? [...] > 2. If not, should we proceed using "%25"? [...] > 3. If not, should we proceed using "%"? [...] > My personal opinions are that we should proceed using "_" (or > some other character), or decide that it's not important > enough. It's worth solving if we can come to consensus on > a lightweight solution; if we decide that we need to update > RFC 3986 then I think the right path is to abandon the work. > (That summarizes as "0. Yes, 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. No") I believe the proper technical solution is option 3 because it allows for easy cut'n paste. This is what I would implement if I would have to solve the problem in an ad-hoc way (assuming that I have access to the URI parser implementation). Since option 3. is not feasible at the moment and since I believe that the problem is a marginal one, my answer would be "0. No, 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes". (It would be nice if the IETF would have a mechanism to track change requests so that this issue can be reconsidered whenever the URI spec gets revised.) /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
