- From: Dan Oscarsson <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:00:10 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch, masinter@parc.xerox.com
- Cc: cherlin@newbie.net, uri@bunyip.com
> > 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. So we should have two standards of how the syntax of an URL should be? Even if we define a new proposed standard: url-i18n-syntax that references the ascii url-syntax, some people may stop at the ascii standard and miss the i18n one and there may be a wording conflict. One way could be to withdraw the current url standard and publish a new, or we could do as you propose if the ascii url-syntax standard clearly states that if a URL is used internationally the standard defined by the url-i18n-syntax should be used. Martin, I and a few others colud probably put together a url-i18n-syntax draft that could be published simulataneously with the url-syntax draft. What do you think Martin? R Dan
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 1997 10:01:57 UTC