IPv6 address/port format

[MARAY Tamas]

> >Wrong. Conflicts with the UNIX shell.
> 
> Right, if you care about proposed standards.  RFC 2732 says to use
> 
> http://[FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210]:80/index.html
> 
> If you disagree with RFC 2732, take it up with the Internet standards
> process.
> 
> In any case, there are a lot of characters that conflict with the Unix
> shell, all of which are valid in the pathname section of a URL.  '?'
> means "any character" to some shells, does that mean we forbid its use
> for CGI scripts?

Of course not. That is an unlucky case and we must live with it
since we have no impact on it anymore. But why shouldn't we create a
solution for IPv6 URL syntax which satisfies all the requirements
if we are still in time and position? If we choose the syntax watchfully,
such kind of conflicts can be avoided.

Sincerely,

Tamas Maray
<maray@fsz.bme.hu>