- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:19:29 -0700
- To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
- Cc: IETF URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
>> >(3) whatever localized character set is in use >> > >> >(3) Never works, because it doesn't interoperate. It results in a bunch >> >of islands which can't communicate, except via US-ASCII. >> >> But that is what Martin said he wanted -- the ability of an author to >> decide what readership is most important. Why is it that it is okay >> to localize the address, but not to localize the charset? > >I can't speak for Martin. But if I understand what you're >saying, my response is that people want to use their own language in URLs >and will do so whatever the standard says. If we define a standard way >for them to include their national characters in such a way that those >characters won't be misinterpreted by the recipient, then we've achived >interoperability. That's the goal of protocol design. Right, and requiring UTF-8 will cause characters to be misinterpreted by the recipient if the recipient doesn't know that it is supposed to be using UTF-8. That is the difference between designing a protocol and defining an existing protocol. .....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 1997 20:20:34 UTC