Microid mailing list

[Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter AT jabber.org>]

Yaniv Golan wrote:
> Oops. I actually think the "+" thing was my proposal, and therefore my
> fault. Sorry about that :)

No worries. I should have checked RFC 3986. :)

> Because there are no current schemes using "+", 

There are no current registered schemes. The only scheme I use with a
"+" in it is svn+ssh (but it is not registered with the IANA).

> I vote +1 for option
> #2 (Provide guidance for handling of "+"), and I suggest specifying
> that the schema name should be URL-encoded, so that "+" will become
> "%2B". 

So on the off chance that someone uses svn+ssh as input to a MicroID,
the resulting MicroID would be something like:

mailto+svn%2Bssh:sha1:some-long-hash-here

That seems acceptable.

/psa

> 
> Yaniv
> 
> --
> Yaniv Golan
> CTO, Yedda | http://yedda.com
> e: yaniv AT yedda.com | m: +972-54-4-548-249 | my yedda:
> http://yedda.com/people/9512186217351
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: microid-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:microid-
>> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:45 AM
>> To: Brian Suda
>> Cc: microid AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> Subject: Re: [Microid] Augmented Backus-Naur Form Scheme issues?
>>
>> Brian Suda wrote:
>>> i did a quick search through the archives and didn´t find
>> anything
>>> http://www.google.is/search?hl=is&client=firefox-
>> a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-
>> US%3Aofficial&hs=Q5N&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Flists.ibiblio.org%2Fpi
>> permail%2Fmicroid%2F+scheme&btnG=Leita&lr=
>>> Can some one confirm that this is not actually an issue, or
>> that it
>>> doesn´t matter that it is?
>>>
>>> According to the scheme:
>>> inputs  = scheme "+" scheme
>>> scheme  = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
>>>           ; a URI scheme name (e.g., mailto)
>>>
>>> you can have multiple schemes separated by a + symbol, but the
>> scheme
>>> itself can have a + in it. For example:
>>>
>>> svn+ssh as one scheme, concatenated + with a second scheme,
>> https
>>> that would be svn+ssh+https, how would you know that is svn+ssh
>> and
>>> not ssh+http? or is that even an issue?
>> That is a good catch. Section 3.1 of RFC 3986 defines scheme as
>> follows:
>>
>>    scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )
>>
>> So you're right that "+" is allowed in the scheme name. Clearly
>> we did
>> not check the URI syntax when we defined the MicroID syntax, and
>> a quick
>> check of the IANA registry would have revealed no schemes with
>> "+" in
>> the name:
>>
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
>>
>> We should have chosen a character that's not allowed in "scheme",
>> such
>> as "_".
>>
>> But I'm not sure what to do about it now. We could:
>>
>> 1. Change the separator to "_" or somesuch.
>>
>>    Pro: Conforms to RFC 3986.
>>    Con: Breaks existing implementations.
>>
>> 2. Provide guidance for handling of "+".
>>
>>    Pro: Doesn't break existing implementations.
>>    Con: Potentially confusing; does not conform to RFC 3986.
>>
>> The spec writer in me likes (1), but the documentation guy in me
>> prefers
>> (2) since I really don't like to break existing implementations.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature