Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

"Roy T. Fielding" <> Wed, 16 April 1997 00:31 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa18530; 15 Apr 97 20:31 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24165; 15 Apr 97 20:31 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA20140 for uri-out; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (mocha.Bunyip.Com []) by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA20135 for <>; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:20:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA17984 (mail destined for; Tue, 15 Apr 97 20:20:31 -0400
Received: from by id aa29956; 15 Apr 97 17:19 PDT
To: Chris Newman <>
Cc: IETF URI list <>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:12:09 PDT." <>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:19:29 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Message-Id: <>
Precedence: bulk

>> >(3) whatever localized character set is in use
>> >
>> >(3) Never works, because it doesn't interoperate.  It results in a bunch
>> >of islands which can't communicate, except via US-ASCII.
>> But that is what Martin said he wanted -- the ability of an author to
>> decide what readership is most important.  Why is it that it is okay
>> to localize the address, but not to localize the charset?
>I can't speak for Martin.  But if I understand what you're
>saying, my response is that people want to use their own language in URLs
>and will do so whatever the standard says.  If we define a standard way
>for them to include their national characters in such a way that those
>characters won't be misinterpreted by the recipient, then we've achived 
>interoperability.  That's the goal of protocol design.

Right, and requiring UTF-8 will cause characters to be misinterpreted by
the recipient if the recipient doesn't know that it is supposed to be
using UTF-8.  That is the difference between designing a protocol and
defining an existing protocol.