- From: Peter Saint-Andre <Peter.SaintAndre@webex.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:49:33 -0600
- To: Pratik Datta <pratik.datta@oracle.com>, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
Correct. On 6/22/10 12:45 PM, "Pratik Datta" <pratik.datta@oracle.com> wrote: > Do you think we should to UTF-8 encoding instead? > > I tried reading the IRI spec and from what I understand it says that all non > ascii characters should be converted to ascii using the %dd notation. In that > case US-ASCII should be fine, shouldn't it ? > > Pratik > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:20 AM > To: Pratik Datta; XMLSec WG Public List > Subject: RE: ACTION-574: proposal on prefix rewriting > >> I realized that a URI is a sequence of characters, it can't be digested >> unless it is converted to bytes. For this I am proposing that we use US- >> ASCII encoding, because URI are limited to US-ASCII characters aren't they > ? > > No, they're not, although it tends to be good practice in namespace URIs to > avoid pushing it and using IRIs or appending crazy path info. Your proposal > seems to be to force them to be normalized into US-ASCII by URL encoding any > character points that aren't. We should check on that to make sure that's > sufficiently well-defined, but it sounds reasonable. > > -- Scott > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:50:26 UTC