- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@apache.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:49:35 -0700
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, public-iri@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> These are reasons to change RFC 2396 in a way that allows %-escapes > in the hostname component (and probably other components). Has this > been considered and refused? Yes, it has been considered and refused. The IETF developed IDNA in order to avoid the need for operating system infrastructure to be updated en masse prior to deployment of i18n domains. URI processors are part of that infrastructure and the rationale for not changing them is the same as that provided for not globally changing the implementations of BIND. IRIs have to be processed by applications that accept the burden of full Unicode processing already. URIs do not. Adding punycode interpretation to the processing of URIs or gethostbyname simply will not happen because that technology is already deployed. Thus, in order to make deployment possible, punycode processing moves up a layer and URIs are specified such that it becomes easier for the IRI processor to determine where it is needed. Schemes that use DNS within components other than authority will have to provide their own percent-encoding-to-punycode processing, but that's no big deal because there are no such schemes deployed that actually use the domain name for DNS access (they simply use it for identification, which does not require punycode). ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 17:47:22 UTC