Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: Labels"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC01D4D717@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:58:51 -0500
Subject: RE: Labels
I agree that "putting them in URL's" is a red herring. The real issue is to
make
sure they can be sent in either a header or a message body. To encode them
one way
for a message body and another way for a header seems likely to cause
confusion and
error, though. Why wouldn't we just encode it the same way in both?
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 2:48 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Labels
Is there any reason why we want to transmit a label in a URL? I can't think
of any.
Even if you say labels are always URL-encoded UTF-8 a client would not know
(just by looking at it) which segment of the URL was 'doubly' encoded.
I would be inclined to go for UTF-8 Unicode chars in the message body (XML),
URL-encoded UTF-8 in message headers, and never put them in a URL.
Tim
----------
>From: Clemm, Geoff
>To: WebDAV E-mail
>Subject: RE: Labels
>Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 1:17PM
>
>I don't think it helps to say that they are URL-encoded if we are
>required to transmit it in a URL. These leaves the client wondering
>whether they got the label in the URL-encoded form or not (e.g. when
>it appears in a Revision-Selector header. I believe it will be simpler
>and less error-prone if we just say that they are UTF-8 Unicode characters
>that have been URL-encoded. Any client that handles URL's will be able
>to handle URL-encoding, and assumedly any WebDAV client will need to be
>able to handle URL's.
>
>Cheers,
>Geoff
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:57 AM
>To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Labels
>
>
>
><geoff>
>I agree with those on the mailing list who have argued that it is
sufficient
>
>to internationalize labels to the extent that URL's are internationalized,
>which does not include tagging with language and charset.
></geoff>
>
>Jim W. pointed out that URLs are exempted from the internationallization
>rules. I suggest that we say labels are UTF-8 Unicode characters; and the
>resulting bytes are URL-encoded if we are required to transmit it in a URL
>(unlikely).
>
>Tim
>
>