- From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:50:05 +0300
- To: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
- Cc: chris@lookout.net, public-iri@w3.org
Martin J. Dürst 25/7/'11, 13:55: > 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. My suggestion was that it should *become* invalid/get a warning in - let's say - HTML5 docs. > A URI that contains %FC is perfectly valid (check RFC 3986). Because it's a valid URI, it's also a valid IRI. But an author which -today- inserts %FC is likely to do a mistake - or at least make a bad choice, no? > 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. How common are such servers these days? My focus is authors. And of course it could be the author meant %FC. But might it not more often be simply a result of a bad %-encoder or on a misconception? Leif
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2011 21:13:16 UTC