Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

[Keld J|rn Simonsen <[e-mail]>]

"Martin J. Duerst" writes:

> You might come to the state where you have to view UTF-8 with
> a terminal emulator or editor not set to view it, where the
> above effects are occurring, but this should actually be rare.
> And it wouldn't be better if you looked at ideographic characters
> with an 8859-1 editor or so.
> 
> First, we don't want to have UTF-8 and 8859-1 (or any other legacy
> coding) mixed in the same document. Once everything is working as
> envisioned, if you transport a Western European URL in 8859-1,
> you transport the characters, as 8859-1. It's only when this is
> changed to %HH, or to binary 8-bit URLs as such which lack any
> information on character encoding, that you change to UTF-8.

Pardon me, should the %HH notation not be transparant,
in the sense of a transfer encoding of MIME? It should not be dependent
on whether the encoding is 8859-1, UTF-8 or SJIS or whatever.
%HH encodes bytes, unrelated to encoding.

Keld