On 07/12/2012 03:16 PM, Dave Thaler wrote:
Because it's completely unpredictable without having
browser-specific knowledge which I think is inappropriate here, I
don't think it should recommend either one. Making a recommendation
in this document will just increase the likelihood of interoperability
problems as people start passing URIs like "http://[fe80::1%251]/";
into APIs and files without knowing how it'll be interpreted by the
broad base of already deployed apps and libraries. We don't want
to make the situation worse, and this sort of recommendation just
makes the current bad situation worse.
Suggestion:
On input, applications MUST accept the formal syntax and MAY accept
another syntax.
On output, applications MUST use the formal syntax and MUST NOT use
another syntax.
For example, when a user pastes "http://[fe80::1%251]";, the browser
interprets however it wants, turns it into either "http://[fe80::1-251]";
or "http://[fe80::1-1]";, and displays that in the address bar.
Simon
--
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
