Changeset 64


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Mar 29, 2011, 8:07:56 PM (9 years ago)
Author:
duerst@…
Message:

added explanation for why conversion to %-encoding is desirable for ireg-names

File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • draft-ietf-iri-3987bis/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis.xml

    r63 r64  
    2121<!ENTITY rfc5890 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5890.xml">
    2222<!ENTITY rfc5891 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5891.xml">
     23<!ENTITY rfc6055 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6055.xml">
    2324]>
    2425<?rfc strict='yes'?>
     
    693694    <vspace/>"http://r&amp;#xE9;sum&amp;#xE9;.example.org"<vspace/> will be
    694695    converted to <vspace/>"http://r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9.example.org".</t>
     696
     697  <t>This conversion for ireg-name is in line with Section 3.2.2
     698    of <xref target="RFC3986"/>, which does not mandate
     699    a particular registered name lookup technology. For further background,
     700    see <xref target="RFC6055"/> and <xref target="Gettys"/>.</t>
    695701
    696702
     
    26042610&rfc2640;
    26052611&rfc3987;
     2612&rfc6055;
    26062613<reference anchor='RFC4395bis'>
    26072614  <front>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.