- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 06 May 2003 16:59:05 -0500
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org, uri@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 16:49, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > These are reasons to change RFC 2396 in a way that allows %-escapes > > in the hostname component (and probably other components). Has this > > been considered and refused? > > Yes, it has been considered and refused. If I'm following correctly, that's documented at... http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/issues.html#036-host-escaping > The IETF developed IDNA in > order to avoid the need for operating system infrastructure to be > updated en masse prior to deployment of i18n domains. URI processors > are part of that infrastructure and the rationale for not changing them > is the same as that provided for not globally changing the > implementations > of BIND. > > IRIs have to be processed by applications that accept the burden of > full Unicode processing already. URIs do not. Adding punycode > interpretation to the processing of URIs or gethostbyname simply > will not happen because that technology is already deployed. Thus, > in order to make deployment possible, punycode processing moves up > a layer and URIs are specified such that it becomes easier for the > IRI processor to determine where it is needed. Has anybody got an example to show how this works? I'm trying to collecte examples/tests, if only to keep all this stuff straight in my own mind. > > Schemes that use DNS within components other than authority will have > to provide their own percent-encoding-to-punycode processing, but that's > no big deal because there are no such schemes deployed that actually > use the domain name for DNS access (they simply use it for > identification, > which does not require punycode). > > ....Roy -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 18:01:33 UTC