- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:02:13 -0600
- To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
- CC: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, public-iri@w3.org
<hat type='individual'/> On 7/10/12 1:16 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > --On Monday, July 09, 2012 20:03 +0000 Dave Thaler > <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: <snip/> >> That address bar today >> can often contain IRIs, which are more readable than URIs. > > I'll agree with "more readable" but note that there seems to be > an industry trend to be toward more and more complex URIs which > are usefully accessible only from favorites/bookmarks, imported > references, and search mechanisms of some flavor. Discussions > in the IETF may lead to reinforcing that trend (e.g., proposals > to incorporate hashes instead of user names and of signed URIs). > If one assumes a URL that goes on for several lines, with most > of the relevant tail components present, possibly embedding > another URL, multiple query components, and so on, then > readability is an unreasonable expectation whether the abstract > text is ASCII or not. Even if it is not, the marginal > percentage readability improvement from IRIs is likely to be > miniscule. It seems to me that a browser does not need to present the "raw" URI in the address bar, and ought to display hex-encoded characters there in a user-friendly manner. So I don't think that IRI vs. URI is all that relevant for the address bar, whereas it's more relevant for activities like authoring HTML documents. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 18:02:41 UTC