Opened 9 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#60 closed defect (wontfix)

Should we recommend using different ABNF rule names to clarify escaping?

Reported by: duerst@… Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: 4395bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:


When defining an URI/IRI scheme, in many cases rule names are taken from an existing spec, and prose explains that certain characters have to be escaped. It may be helpful to recommend explicitly changing rule names so that it is clear that the escaped (in the scheme spec) and unescaped (in the preexisting protocol spec) rules are not exactly the same.

[see also]

[Currently this is just a question; change the summary to a statement if we agree to do this.]

Change History (3)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by masinter@…

Whether this is necessary or good advice seems to be too variable to warrant explicit advice in the URI/IRI registration guidelines.

Are there any examples where this kind of renaming wasn't done and the results were not clear? Is this advice useful standalone?

In absence of an example where not doing this has led to problems we are marking this as "wontfix".

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by chris@…

WG consensus is to close this as "won't fix". See:

comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by chris@…

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed

There have been no objections and during the design team meeting today it was agreed to close this as won't fix.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.