At 12:49 04/02/23 +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Bruce Lilly writes:
>Comments are incompatible with URIs unless some quoting mechanism is used.
>That is because URIs may contain parentheses, as in
>http://users.erols.com/blilly/(foo)(bar)
>See RFC2396 for URI syntax details. RFC 2369 quotes URIs in angle brackets,
>which are not themselves allowed in URIs.
Well this is not the first time someone has proposed a structured header
with a URI in it, surely? So what has been done about this on previous
occasions?
Any definitive answers appreciated here. For the moment,
I'm just keeping it with "one URI, no comments, no special
mechanisms, follow the length limitations in RFC 2822".
Parentheses in URIs are not all that common, so they could be
escaped. Or else the whole thing could be put inside a quoted-string.
Using angle-brackets would doubtless also be a good idea, though I do not
think that on its own would allow comments to appear outside of the angle
brackets with parentheses inside being treated differently.
The less complications, the better in my opinion.
>One issue to consider is long URIs. If comments are disallowed, no quoting
>is required. URIs cannot contain whitespace characters, so a simple way to
>handle a long URI is to allow a URI to be line-folded; it can be
reconstructed
>by unfolding and eliding any whitespace.
Long URIs are a pain in message/article bodies too. Is there any
possibility that those responsible to fixing the format of URIs could
include a folding mechansim? I do not like the idea of fixing what is a
more widespread URI problem within just a few particular email headers.
There is something explicit in the new URI draft, at
http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html,
but as far as I know, it's not followed by MUAs.
Regards, Martin.