Re: revised "generic syntax" and "data:" internet drafts

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

The requirements for "Draft Standard" (which is what
I propose for draft-fielding-url-syntax-04) are different than
the requirements for "Best Current Practice" (which is
what will be proposed by the URL-WG on the URL process.)

Between Proposed and Draft, protocol specifications can
be changed to accomodate the actual experience of implementations.
The proposed wording isn't based on such experience.
I've given reasons for rejecting the proposal wording
change that was actually made, and I also think that what
draft-fielding-url-syntax-04 says meets the requirements
for "draft standard". That is, I'm satisfied with the
words that exist.

I think that it would be reasonable to have a new "Proposed
Standard" that covers 8-bit URLs in UTF-8 as well as
the recommendation that 7-bit URLs be encoded with %NN.
Since this proposal wouldn't be incompatible with
draft-fielding-url-syntax-04.txt, it can progress
independently. I think any proposed standard for UTF-8
encoded URLs would have a different range of applicability
than for ASCII URLs.

Larry