- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:20:30 -0700
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org
At 5:22 PM -0400 4/15/03, Martin Duerst wrote: >Overall, the normalization strategy on IRIs varies according to the >place in the URI: > >- For domain name part: use NFKC or more (i.e. nameprep), but > gets normalized again (with nameprep) when doing dns lookup. >- For the path part: preferably NFKC, but NFC is okay when needed. >- For the query part: There may be cases where you on purpose > want to use something totally unnormalized (e.g. when submitting > unnormalized data to a CGI script that normalizes). > >Does that sound reasonable? Do you think it needs any changes in the >draft, and if yes, what would be those changes? It doesn't sound reasonable if you intend IRI comparison to be interoperable. If you don't intend IRI comparison to be interoperable, I still would pick one normalization for each of the three parts, and I would pick NFKC, but you don't have to be consistent if interoperability isn't important. Am I the only person who worries about IRI comparison being interoperable? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 22:33:10 UTC