Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:19:29 -0700


To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Cc: IETF URI list <uri@bunyip.com>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:12:09 PDT."
             <Pine.SOL.3.95.970415164238.22015V-100000@eleanor.innosoft.com> 
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:19:29 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Message-Id:  <9704151719.aa29956@paris.ics.uci.edu>

>> >(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