- From: Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:44:30 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
On 18 jan 2010, at 21:06, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:51:38 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > >>> We might still have to discuss if we want to tolerate some invalid >>> percent-encoding and if non-UTF-8 encodings should be possible. (I think >>> both are a bad idea.) >> >> How is non-UTF8 encoding for other URI schemes dealt with? > > I assume behavior is wildly different for different MIME types. For HTML the fragment component is decoded using the document's encoding, which leads to fun bugs when a browser guesses the wrong encoding of the document. If we allow non-UTF-8 encodings we have to determine it by context somehow, which is easy to break when copying URIs or if the environment somehow changes. Clearly, my "vote" is for mandating UTF-8 for now and change it only if there are implementation issues or feedback during last call. Fully agreed. -- Jack Jansen, <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, http://www.cwi.nl/~jack If I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution -- Emma Goldman
Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 22:45:25 UTC