W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2012

RE: [iri] #131: Using document charset causes interoperability problems

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2012 09:06:53 -0700
To: "draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@tools.ietf.org>, "stpeter@stpeter.im" <stpeter@stpeter.im>
CC: "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E2D869581@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I hate this feature, and would love to get rid of it, but let's acknowledge at least somewhere that it happens. That is, the interoperability problems are real, but not documenting it here doesn't solve the problem.

I think what the text in the document intended was that whether there _was_ a "document charset" at all depended on the format of the document... yes, for HTML, maybe for Word (up to word), no for PDF, maybe (not yet defined) for text/plain.

I can see two choices that might work:

* Any document format that wishes this kind of processing has to say that what they are using aren't really IRIs, they're funny strings that get preprocessed to turn them into IRIs or URIs.
* The IRI spec (continues to) explicitly defines this document-charset-dependent behavior, but is more explicit about the rules for where "document charset" comes from.

I could go with either one of those. How do those seem to the group?

-----Original Message-----
From: iri issue tracker [mailto:trac+iri@grenache.tools.ietf.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:04 PM
To: draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@tools.ietf.org; stpeter@stpeter.im
Cc: public-iri@w3.org
Subject: [iri] #131: Using document charset causes interoperability problems

#131: Using document charset causes interoperability problems

 As reported by Dave Thaler...

 URIs and/or IRIs can appear in many contexts.

 In normal text in an email message, or in a PDF file or Word doc or
 whatever else.

 Allowing it to vary complicates frameworks considerably since now the doc
 charset has to be passed from whatever extracts the URI from the document
 (HTML or otherwise) and whatever else needs to know the interpretation
 (normalizer code, comparison code, whatever).   Various API frameworks
 already have various sorts of "Uri" classes that take in a URI-like string
 and let you do things like get the URI form or the IRI form, or various
 components or whatever.   This means the constructor needs to change since
 you cannot correctly interpret an IRI(bis) without knowing the document

 I'm not yet convinced that's a change worth making.   Currently everything
 assumes UTF-8.   With this change, we'll get random behavior until
 everything is updated, which is a state worse than today in my view.


 If the charset were iso-8859-1 then under RFC 3987 as I understand it,
 this would become:


 In other words, you have to convert iso-8859-1 to UTF-8 and then pct-
 encode the UTF-8.

 But as I understand 3987bis it would become:


 which would then be passed around via various APIs and protocols that
 would not pass the charset along with it. As such it would be interpreted
 by the receiving code as pct-encoded UTF-8:


 which of course it isn't.

 As such, we should make the RFC 3987 behavior (UTF-8, NOT the doc charset)
 required for everything that doesn't explicitly pass the charset along
 with the URI.

 Reporter:  stpeter@…  |      Owner:  draft-ietf-iri-3987bis@…
     Type:  defect     |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major      |  Milestone:
Component:  3987bis    |    Version:
 Severity:  -          |   Keywords:

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/131>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

Received on Saturday, 21 July 2012 16:07:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:39:44 UTC