Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:19:31 -0500 From: Gavin Nicol <email@example.com> Message-Id: <199602092319.SAA09874@ebt-inc.ebt.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: <9602092235.AA18323@just.smarts.com> (email@example.com) Subject: Re: http charset labelling >The convenience of extended character set for URL may outweigh the >inconvenience of less reliable ability to type them in from printed >representation. But, we should be aware of this tradeoff if we >decide to make it. This is Masataka's point, which you seem to be >missing. No, I dodn't miss the point, but I disagree that it leads to the logical conclusion that one *must* use a limited character repertoire in all cases. In actual fact, I tend to agree that in general, people should stick to a limited character repertoire if they want maximum interoperability, but as I have noted people want to use their native language, and will do so. We need to minimize the amount of interoperability issues this will bring about. I should note that this problem may become more common as people put databases and whatnot online. It is very common for field names to be in some native language that does not use roman letters.