On 14/07/2012 15:39, Simon Perreault wrote: > On 07/14/2012 04:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 12/07/2012 23:34, SM wrote: >>> Hi Simon, >>> At 12:47 12-07-2012, Simon Perreault wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> As long as an implementation supports the formal syntax, there is >>> interoperability. Telling people what not to use sounds appropriate if >>> there is a good reason to do so. The requirements seem redundant to me. >> >> Also, telling browser implementers what to do has very little chance >> of success. > > So obviously browser implementers should be involved in this discussion? > We shouldn't be "telling" them, we should be discussing with them.
Yes, but I think that's outside the scope of the present draft. I understand that there is forum for such discussions over in W3C-land. > >> Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to accept Dave Thaler's >> line of argument. The fact that some browsers in the past accepted >> a raw % and that IE today accepts an escaped % (i.e. %25) makes it very >> hard to suggest a consistent use of % at all. Maybe we just have to >> drop this point. > > It looks like my suggestion wasn't clear. I too agree with Dave Thaler's > argument. I was building on top of it... Not sure how to explain it or > formulate it otherwise... I think your suggestion was clear, just not (IMHO) a useful thing to put in an RFC. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------