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

["Roy T. Fielding" <[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 agree with this.

>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.

I think that would be the best course of action to follow.

 ...Roy T. Fielding
    Department of Information & Computer Science    ([e-mail])
    University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425    fax:[phone]
    http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/