- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:53:58 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
Hello Anne, [Removed ietf@ietf.org, because I'm discussing details.] Sorry to be late with answering. I'm blaming a conference and the followup jetlag. On 2012/10/25 22:54, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I aligned it with IRI now, Great. > apart from private Unicode ranges. Not > really sure why we should ban them in one place and not in another. Private Unicode ranges were originally banned everywhere, because they are not intended for public interchange. We allowed them in the query part, because sometimes you may want to use them as a payload. That's how we got to where we are. [If it interests you, this happened in August 2003, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-03 and http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-duerst-iri-03.txt.] If you have a good reason to change that, please tell us. Looking at the bigger picture, there are literally dozens groups of characters/codepoints like private use characters in Unicode that are almost never used, and almost always a bad idea, in IRIs. We could spend lots of hours discussing the merit of including or excluding them, but I think we can use our time for better stuff. Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 09:54:33 UTC