Bill Fenner wrote: >Any other input? I agree with your analysis: proceed using "_" or some other innocuous character; do not do anything that requires a change to the established URI syntax. I specifically reject the cut&paste argument in favour of using unencoded "%": this is a sufficiently rare situation that convenience really doesn't matter.
On the choice of innocuous character I have no strong opinion. "_" seems fine. I note that ";" would be harmonious with existing syntax elsewhere in URIs. Almost any punctuation character looks OK, however. Letters "g" to "z" (either case) are the only technically possible characters that are really bad choices. -zefram -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
