Re: Next steps for rfc6874bis

[Brian Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Philip,
Andrew offered ABNF to back up his assertion, I can't point to it from my
phone but you'll find it upthread somewhere. Whether real world parsers can
respect it is a question for the parser authors.

Regards,
    Brian Carpenter
    (via tiny screen & keyboard)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2021, 21:29 Philip Homburg, <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> In your letter dated Tue, 17 Aug 2021 08:46:03 +1200 you wrote:
> >It isn't even obvious that this was a mistake. If you accept Andrew
> >Cady's argument, it was not a mistake at all. (The mistake was in
> >assuming that percent-encoding of "%" is required, by Andrew's
> >argument.) As Bob says, we need to hear from the browser people.
> >The next version of the draft will set this out as an open issue.
>
> I'm quite curious how something like
> https://[fe80::1%eth0]/
> conforms to RFC 3986 (Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax)
> which says in Section 2.4:
> "Because the percent ("%") character serves as the indicator for
> "percent-encoded octets, it must be percent-encoded as "%25" for that
> "octet to be used as data within a URI.
>
> In any case, the important part is that when we talk to the web community
> we offer a different character, such as '-', as an option. Instead of just
> focussing on the '%' or '%25' issue.
>
> In my opinion making https://[fe80::1%25]/ a valid URL that refers to the
> 25th interface is going to lead to a huge number of parsing errors.
>
>
>