I am not (yet) planning to protest the decision we made about unicode strings in URIs, but I would like some clarification. 1) Is there some reason why these Unicode characters cannot be %encoded? I thought someone said something to this effect on the telecon, but I didn't catch it. If not, what's the rationale for insisting on a backwards-incompatible change, when the (comparatively) backwards-compatible %encoding works just as well? 2) Am I correct in saying that this means that RDF will no longer be using URI-refs to identify Resources? Is this consistent with our charter? 3) Does this mean we will allow other characters like %20 (space) into our URIs that have traditionally been %encoded? If not, how do we decide what's allowed and what isn't? 4) Which spec is going to describe these new identifiers? The IRI spec[1] seems to have fifteen rather complex but relevant pages on them. Can we afford the extra time it may take to integrate these and review them? [1] http://www.w3.org/International/2001/draft-masinter-url-i18n-08.txt All the best, -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 15:08:11 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:38 EDT