- From: Paul Hoffman <ietf-lists@proper.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 09:37:20 -0700
- To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Cc: html-wg@oclc.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 7:44 AM 8/3/95, Gavin Nicol wrote: >I don't mind where the information is put, but one reason >for preferring: > > http:[EUC]//www.jacme.co.jp/%B0%F5%BA%FE.html > >over > > http://www.jacme.co.jp/[EUC]%B0%F5%BA%FE.html > >is that the latter could very will be a legal name within the system, >leading to ambiguity. I disagree. The person in charge of www.jacme.co.jp is in charge of creating the object-name part of the URLs. They can make up unambiguous names. End users don't make up URLs, or if they do, they shouldn't assume anything about how the server will respond to their requests. In the case you give, the server administrator can specify that: - [EUC]%B0%F5%BA%FE.html is an alias/link to the file called %B0%F5%BA%FE.html - [anything] is truncated from all incoming URLs since it is only useful to folks looking at URLs, not the server - [EUC]%B0%F5%BA%FE.html returns a different result than [XYZ]%B0%F5%BA%FE.html All of these are decisions made by the server adminstrator and anyone who he or she allows to create URLs. That being said, I think it's fine for people who create URLs that might have different character sets to use a consistent naming character set scheme, and client makers can choose whether or not they want to do something smart about those names. However, it should not be a change to the current URL RFC at this very late date. Feel free to create a seperate draft that describes this as an optional naming convention. --Paul Hoffman --Proper Publishing
Received on Thursday, 3 August 1995 09:38:28 UTC