IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-file Reserved characters

Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> Sat, 17 January 2015 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <phluid61@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27311AD259 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sgg-n_d9VMEx for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58E031AD190 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id q107so7281865qgd.1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lWxNjZJjVqEoRsOhS+6gWyrVmTjfFdC3WnHzPU0YK2c=; b=Dv7sXOY0/xvt9eX8bh7oc9Pk+G2p6BI9p3vg5UQmJwdDninYav26U2JFXk2G6OoC0K VnNj4TDI6kVy452JE1GI6jsmU/9ffXx4zPjDxPqKZCs8F6bD/ZiqyKxKfi0IkfTigscq 8SvTrqwCbJuHCJfE1D02ZCVXfq1zIOUyebzSlvYK6WlecaSh72ct5cmXF70pcZyLk7fR iDoFU8hSr86jQE3djwERZcDXIm+1szBC1hJAh/IImXfab6agyA5GtKyJBi/90gK8QE7F M5BDy5f0iJ56d4s2x/HMOQnwOqDxCrgkA1032pX1WcAmRGeTSyAM8+6dV1qEhKty3Wp+ VSBA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.37.131 with SMTP id x3mr11969518qad.36.1421531163560; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:03 -0800 (PST)
Sender: phluid61@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.93.98 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:46:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <02ca01d0327c$368eb500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <20150112011216.17665.13268.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CACweHNBmr2eJO9p1QGuwR8jWS4RXNZtxQP1cxxF+1ZywqiH=Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZfaXuAzRj0FHot2V1LLdQR7nXFbd0BK-BFA86GHJmgKg@mail.gmail.com> <036301d02e94$15a95200$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CACweHNBUkfkNsJtoj6eQFyo9FLDpdVB26D4w1NgNnV3PDnDjBw@mail.gmail.com> <01d501d02f36$530acaa0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CACweHNCkY0JMHFnyvROfyuK1WaeQD8z9ZF0HHRZERoNuK4uyNg@mail.gmail.com> <02ca01d0327c$368eb500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 07:46:03 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lwLEJKV_DdNmHIu2lS15xHoP-yA
Message-ID: <CACweHNAtz++VYYyEnPGnNWB4vqwL3cHdBMoR0ROL=5MESq2oNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/c1j9V5EbwNTQ5XqdIJbxeOqN3_U>
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-appsawg-file Reserved characters
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 21:46:06 -0000

On 18/01/2015, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Matthew
>
> Assuming that the minicharter requires us to conform to RFC3986, then I
> think that s.2 has to be changed to remove the vertical bar (&#179; ?).
>

Yeah, that discussion has been had on the list, and was one on the
motivators for suggesting separate non-normative appendices for
non-conforming but oft-seen variations.

I'm not sure we can entirely punt it to "human-facing", though, since
historically actual machine-land URLs have included the bar character.
I think it will be enough to say that they exist(ed?), and if one were
to be updated to the current spec it could be translated *thus*.

I am working on making this change.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status