Re: revised "generic syntax" and "data:" internet drafts

Dan Oscarsson (Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se)
Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:00:10 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:00:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Dan Oscarsson <Dan.Oscarsson@trab.se>
Message-Id: <199704080700.JAA13330@valinor.malmo.trab.se>
To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch, masinter@parc.xerox.com
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" and "data:" internet drafts
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