Re: UTF-8 and URLs

Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> Fri, 25 April 1997 04:01 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06121; 25 Apr 97 0:01 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01116; 25 Apr 97 0:01 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA05198 for uri-out; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA05193 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:57:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.alis.com by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA25515 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Thu, 24 Apr 97 22:57:21 -0400
Received: from fyergeau.alis.com ([207.81.28.105]) by genstar.alis.ca (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA28125; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:56:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970424225624.00d6262c@genstar.alis.ca>
X-Sender: yergeau@genstar.alis.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:56:24 -0400
To: uri@bunyip.com
From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
Subject: Re: UTF-8 and URLs
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <335F90D8.6EDB@parc.xerox.com>
References: <SIMEON.9704240851.W@tp7.Jck.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by services.bunyip.com id WAA05194
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by services.bunyip.com id WAA05198

À 09:56 24-04-97 PDT, Larry Masinter a écrit :
>I think given its likely controversial nature, we should clearly
>make these recommendations in a separate RFC, and perhaps with
>a new working group.

Meaning what?  Two separate standards?  Or worse, a standard and an
experimental/informational/BCP?  I thought we had already buried that one.
Who wants a two-tier Web, with only the lower tier internationalized, raise
your hand!

Let's see: we would have an i18n RFC that would allow URLs to contain most
any characters, and a (possibly Draft) standard that would say "All URLs
consist of a restricted set of characters..." (we know which): clear
contradiction.

Further, the (possibly Draft) standard would still be in contradiction with
widespread current practice, would still be technically unsound (incomplete
mapping between octets and characters), and I don't see that it could
gather a consensus when it can't today for these very reasons.  No progress.

On the other hand, would there be a consensus for the new draft to create a
new, separate standard, in contradiction in at least one respect with the
(possibly Draft) standard?  I doubt it.  No progress here either.

Please let's drop the separate draft idea for good.  There is not an
ASCII-only Internet and another for the rest of the world, so let's not
even try to do that in  one of our most important standards.

Regards,


-- 
François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal
Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547
Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561