Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "RE: Labels"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <2000Feb23.163700.1250.1486539@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:40:08 -0500
Subject: RE: Labels
.. its bogus to do a URL-encoding in the body just to make it consistent
with what is in the header. If we take that approach, then the <href>'s
should also be URL-encoded, but I didn't see any requirement to do that in
2518.
Most clients, I suggest, will URL-decode messages early enough (maybe even
in the web server) that the confusion won't occur.
Tim
----------
>From: Clemm, Geoff
>To: ietf-dav-versioning
>Subject: RE: Labels
>Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 4:14PM
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>