W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: UTF-8 Encoding Question

From: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:09:20 -0500
Message-Id: <p0433010db6c44d184cec@[]>
To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
At 3:11 PM -0500 3/1/01, John Stracke wrote:
>Dan Brotsky wrote:
>>  >   <D:href 
>>  This certainly would be a helpful thing for servers to say to clients
>>  (although maybe in some other way), and I second your request to JimW
>>  about adding it as an issue.
>It might be better to wait and see whether IRIs take off
>(<draft-masinter-url-i18n-07.txt>; broadly, the approach is to 
>define that IRIs
>are like URLs, but in Unicode; to use an IRI in a context that 
>demands a URL, you
>encode it in UTF-8, then apply %-encoding as normal).  No sense creating two
>separate mechanisms to solve the same problem.

I'm a big fan of IRI's (as you can tell from my earlier emails) but I 
think the issue here is the one of what to do when clients submit 
URIs with other encodings that the server returns to them in a body. 
Even when servers go to IRI discipline for URLs they generate, they 
shouldn't necessarily break clients who expect to get back what they 
asked for :^).

Here's another way of phrasing this issue that makes it not be about encoding:

The DAV spec says that it is *resources* that have properties, not 
*urls*, and that many different urls can refer to the same resource. 
When a client requests info about a resource by using a particular 
URL, but the server sends back information about a resource named by 
another URL, what guarantees does the client have about the returned 

1. Is it guaranteed to refer, in the context of this response, to the 
resource that the client asked about in the request?
2. Is it guaranteed *always* to refer to that same resource?  (In 
some sense, is there the same info in this response that one could 
glean from a permanent redirect?)

In this formulation, note that differences in %-escaping conventions 
can lead to different URLs that encode the same octet-stream.  Are 
there special conventions that apply in this case?

Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 17:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:22 UTC