W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Some issues with the IRI document [applicabilityUTF8-10]

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:35:33 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>, public-iri@w3.org

At 15:38 03/04/16 -0700, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

>At 2:18 PM -0400 4/16/03, Martin Duerst wrote:
>>What section 1.2 says is just that in order to be able to use an IRI
>>in a specific case, the characters on the server that one would want
>>to directly expose in the IRI actually have to be exposed via UTF-8
>>in the corresponding URI.
>Boy, I didn't read it as saying that. I see "the encoding of non-ASCII 
>characters should be based on UTF-8", but that is a suggestion, not a 
>mandate. If you mean it as a mandate, it should say "all non-ASCII 
>characters MUST be encoded as percent-escaped UTF-8".

Hello Paul,

This seems to have shifted to be much more about
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#applicabilityUTF8-10 than
about http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit#e9notutf8-05. I have
therefore changed the subject line.

As I wrote yesterday, I have created the new section
(yesterday section 5.4, now section 6.4). This contains all the details.
However, it does not contain any MUST or SHOULD.
What you say above is not completely true; for example,
http://www.example.org/r%E9sum%E9.xml#r&#xe9;sum&#xe9; is quite an
okay URI (reference), although it is not perfect, because of the
r%E9sum%E9 part. So your wording of "all non-ASCII characters MUST
be encoded as percent-escaped UTF-8" would not be appropriate.

Can you please check whether you are okay with the new section at
or whether you think that it needs some stronger normative wording?

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 17:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:14:29 UTC