OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

entity-resolution message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: Unwrapping urn:public:...


John Cowan wrote:

>A W3C Recommendation isn't a standard either.

precisely

>In fact, every time you fill out a form in a browser

which has nothing to do with urls

>but if the form is of type GET, then the plus signs
>are directly in the search part of the URL, right after the "?" character.

Everything to the right of the '?' is a query, not part of the url.

*******************

There is nothing about using '+' for the white spaces instead of '%20' that coincides with current general usage.  So far all of the references have been stale and obscure.  It appears to me that '+' is being proposed only because it can possibly be used, not because it's the best way.

In RFC 2396 (url="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt") the escapement for the white space in a url is '%20'.  This was a reference for the XLink Working Group's W3C Proposed Recommendation 20 December 2000 (url="http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/PR-xlink-20001220/") that Paul was a member of.  In 2.4.3. Excluded US-ASCII Characters
, 2396 states 'Whitespace is also used to delimit URI in many
   contexts.

   space       = <US-ASCII coded character 20 hexadecimal>'

In the bibliographic citations for RFC 2396, RFC1866 is cited.  So whatever points may have been contained in 1866 have been considered, and it can be considered to be superseded by 2396.

I suggest that it is inappropriate for us to change it at this point.

Regards,
David Leland

************************************************************
cowan@mercury.ccil.org wrote on 5/10/01 12:38:55 PM
************************************************************
dcpleland@ftnetwork.com scripsit:
> Norm Walsh wrote:
> 
> >It's in RFC 1866 (HTML 2.0) section 8.2.1. 
> 
> I don't find that rfc on the w3c site.  Nor the Cover pages.
> 
> The inclusion of '+' as an 'other' character dates from rfc 1630.  But I still have never seen it used, and never seen it as part of a standard.  An rfc is not a standard.

A W3C Recommendation isn't a standard either.

In fact, every time you fill out a form in a browser, all the spaces you type
in are sent to the server as plus signs.  In the case of a POST,
this is done stand-alone, but if the form is of type GET, then the plus signs
are directly in the search part of the URL, right after the "?" character.

Dereference this URL in various browsers and see what you get:

http://www.google.com/search?q=XML+parsers

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore
	--Douglas Hofstadter


___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Get your free e-mail account with *unlimited* storage at  http://www.ftnetwork.com

Visit the web site of the Financial Times at  http://www.ft.com



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC