- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:52:03 PDT
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- Cc: Edward Cherlin <cherlin@newbie.net>, uri@bunyip.com
The requirements for "Draft Standard" (which is what I propose for draft-fielding-url-syntax-04) are different than the requirements for "Best Current Practice" (which is what will be proposed by the URL-WG on the URL process.) Between Proposed and Draft, protocol specifications can be changed to accomodate the actual experience of implementations. The proposed wording isn't based on such experience. I've given reasons for rejecting the proposal wording change that was actually made, and I also think that what draft-fielding-url-syntax-04 says meets the requirements for "draft standard". That is, I'm satisfied with the words that exist. I think that it would be reasonable to have a new "Proposed Standard" that covers 8-bit URLs in UTF-8 as well as the recommendation that 7-bit URLs be encoded with %NN. Since this proposal wouldn't be incompatible with draft-fielding-url-syntax-04.txt, it can progress independently. I think any proposed standard for UTF-8 encoded URLs would have a different range of applicability than for ASCII URLs. Larry
Received on Monday, 7 April 1997 18:55:33 UTC