W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > May 2002

Re: update RFC 2396

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:10:20 +0200
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
To: <LMM@acm.org>
Message-Id: <CF60A31D-5DB4-11D6-BBE9-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

I support the inclusion of UTF-8 default encoding. From
WebDAV implementation experience I can say that a lot of
apps and servlet containers mess up UTF-8 encoded URIs.

URIs should define the default encoding. Leaving this
up to the imagination of individuals is not working.
Ideally they would also define the heuristics for
detecting/fallback to other encodings.

IRIs are needed, and not for just "UI" issues. It is
very common to have a mapping of file/resource names
to/from URIs (at least in WebDAV) and IRIs address
this very well.

//Stefan

Am Mittwoch den, 1. Mai 2002, um 07:08, schrieb Larry Masinter:

> I'm getting some pressure to update RFC 2396, if only
> to incorporate RFC 2732 (the IPv6 modifications) and
> related errata. (Well, to be honest, I'm getting pressure
> to update RFC 2732, but I'd rather just incorporate the
> change in an updated 2396).
>
> We'd recycle it at Draft Standard, wait 6 months, and
> then go for Standard. I think it's about time URI went
> to Standard anyway.
>
> Of course, I don't think it will be possible to avoid
> dealing with the URI/URL/URN issue while we're at it,
> but it seems inevitable, and we might as well start now.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 06:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:30 GMT