- From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 96 17:38:12 JST
- To: gtn@ebt.com (Gavin Nicol)
- Cc: masinter@parc.xerox.com, keld@dkuug.dk, uri@bunyip.com
> >So, the available choices of representation on our namecards are: > > > > 1) pure ASCII > > 2) a few % notations embedded in ASCII > > 3) a lot of % notations > > 4) MIME QP with charset labelling > > > >Obviously, 1) is the best both for recognizing and for typing in. > > The only problem is that people *expect* to be able to use whatever > encoding they like in URL's. Then, all we can do for them is to write an informational, or BCP, RFC on why localized URL can't be used for internationalization. > If you look at some of the magazines > in Japan with articles on creating WWW sites. Many of them have URL's > that contain Kanji. Did they? Can you name more specific references? > If you look even closer, you can see than browsers > display this as junk. Such behaviour is unavoidable and is the reason why localization is no good. Masataka Ohta
Received on Monday, 5 February 1996 03:55:13 UTC