- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:54:48 +0900
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, public-iri@w3.org
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.
Received on Monday, 25 July 2011 10:56:09 UTC