On Apr 25, 2017, at 23:25, Carsten Bormann <cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org> wrote:
OK, let me start typing that errata report then.
Below is a draft errata report.
Is this information correct?
Is it sufficient?
Obviously, this errata report doesn’t by itself answer the important questions
raised about links-json, but it might be a useful outcome of this discussion
anyway.
Grüße, Carsten
Report Errata for RFC6690
Date: 2017-04-26
Name: Carsten Bormann
Email: cabo(_at_)tzi(_dot_)org
Type: Editorial
Section: 2
Original Text:
[...] In
order to convert an HTTP Link Header field to this link format, first
the "Link:" HTTP header is removed, any linear whitespace (LWS) is
removed, the header value is converted to UTF-8, and any percent-
encodings are decoded.
Corrected Text:
(add after unchanged original text:)
Note that this percent-decoding damages URIs that percent-encode
reserved characters (i.e., characters out of ":/?#[]@!$&'()*+,;=",
not including the double quotes). Such URIs therefore generally
cannot be successfully used with RFC 6690 link-format.
Notes:
Fully percent-decoding URIs before placing them into the
link-format reduces complexity in processing link-format, but
creates a limitation on the set of URIs that link-format faithfully
can represent. This may not be as widely known as is desirable,
creating a pitfall for unwitting users of RFC 6990.