Re: Internationalization and URLs
> From: Larry Masinter <email@example.com>
> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:19:59 PDT
> On the issue of "non-Uniform URLs", you've pointed out that some URLs
> have alternate forms that are equally valid, including both with and
> without the %xx encoding. This may be true, but it still is the case
> that <<what is printed on paper>> can be typed by everyone who sees it
> without them actually knowing anything about character set encodings.
Perfectly right, but this "typability" requirement is not the same as
a "uniformity" requirement that would mandate a single form for a
> You're proposing something that would no longer have that constraint.
> That's OK with me, but what you're proposing should not then be called
> a URL.
Why not? It's just as uniform as current non-i18nised URLs.
> I think you're suggesting that newspapers should print "Franc,ois" and
> those who do not have c-cedilla on their keyboard should know how to
> translate such a thing into the appropriate %xx code. Is this really
> a reasonable suggestion?
Probably not. Newspapers and such who want to make sure anyone can
*type* in an URL should use ASCII-only one, either the %XX form or an
ASCII-only URL made up for the circumstances. To me, this is not a
good enough reason to *forbid* the use of richer URLs in other
contexts. They are especially needed for queries.
Francois Yergeau <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Alis Technologies Inc., Montreal
Tel : +1 (514) 747-2547
Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561