Re: [OAUTH-WG] Preliminary OAuth Core draft -29

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-07-09 16:48, Mike Jones wrote:
> HTML5 is not cited because it's a working draft - not an approved standard.  In what way is "the definition of the media type in HTML4 is known to be insufficient"?  People have been successfully implementing form-urlencoding with it for quite some time. :-)  Is there a specific wording change that you'd suggest that we make that doesn't involve citing a working draft, rather than an approved standard?

For instance, the HTML4 "definition" doesn't even mention what to do 
with non-ASCII characters.

I understand that it's not particularly attractive, but citing HTML4 
just because it's a "standard" isn't really helpful for people who 
actually follow the link and try to understand what needs to be implemented.

> I'm not sure what aspect of https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth/current/msg09219.html you feel hasn't been addressed.  The restriction prohibiting colon has been removed from the ABNF, like you asked.  Using form-urlencoding when passing parameters through HTTP Basic enables a wider repertoire of characters to be used - again, something you'd asked for.

Sorry, I missed that one; I was looking at the

   UNICODENOCTRLCHAR = <Any Unicode character other than (%x0-1F / %x7F)>

where you had asked for a better way to define it, and that's also in 
the link I sent.

With respect to the original question: you now say that *all* ABNF 
productions define the syntax in terms of Unicode code points. It that's 
the case all is well; but I didn't want to propose that because I don't 
have sufficient knowledge of the contexts where these protocol elements 
are used.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian