- From: Keld J|rn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 22:54:03 +0100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Cc: Dan.Oscarsson@malmo.trab.se, html-wg@oclc.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, maits@dkuug.dk
Larry Masinter writes: A number of things, which I can agree to, including that URLs are described in (abstract) characters, independent of encoding. Then he writes further comments to my initial mail: > > I would propose that URLs be written in the charset of the > > document that references the url, > > This is exactly the situation. URLs are sequences of characters, can > be written in newspapers or on business cards (which, not being > computer encodings, don't have a 'charset'). For those situations > where URLs are embedded in other documents, that embedding should use > the charset of the containing document. The repertoire of characters > allowed within URLs is intentionally restricted to allow such > embedding in almost all contexts. > > > possibly enhanced with > > the extensions that we make to get further characters, > > for example &a-ring; or &#xxxx; > > this is the part that's impossible. You might imagine doing such a > thing, but it doesn't work if you then try to use URLs for the purpose > for which they are functional. > > Some folks want to deal with the variability of how particular > implementations of HTTP or FTP might use sequences of octets to > represent characters, and, in particular, the characters that appear > before the local user behind the HTTP or FTP server. So, if you have a > FTP or HTTP server that serves out files in your file server, and your > file server uses Big5 or Unicode for the representation of file names, > you have to choose an encoding of Big5 or Unicode as octets in order > to deal with the FTP or HTTP protocols. It would be useful to > standardize that encoding, because there are new HTTP implementations > being delivered all the time, and even new FTP implementations. I do not see that I need to have the same encoding as the server, iff the server had adequate charset translation software applicable. This could be a requirement if we allowed extended charsets beyond ASCII in URLs. And it is nicer than requiring URLs always to be written in some UCS encoding, say UTF-8. Keld
Received on Sunday, 28 January 1996 14:02:05 UTC