Re: How browsers display IRI's with mixed encodings

On 2011/07/23 5:17, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> It is one thing that %FC needs to work (in some sense - like
> quirks-mode pages also have to work even if it is not valid). But if
> there is no good necessary usecase for %FC, then we should help authors
> avoid problems by encourage validators to warn against it use.

There's nothing invalid with %FC. A URI that contains %FC is perfectly 
valid (check RFC 3986). Because it's a valid URI, it's also a valid IRI.

And it's useful in some circumstances. Imagine a server where all the 
resource names are encoded in iso-8859-1 (or any other legacy 
(single-byte) encoding). What you tell http (or whatever other 
scheme/protocol) by using %FC is that you want the resource with the 
name with the <0xFC> byte in it.

Regards,    Martin.