Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:57:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com> Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU> Cc: IETF URI list <email@example.com> Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.970418135341.9117Efirstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > Martin, I haven't forgotten about your very detailed problem statement > at <http://www.imc.org/ietf-url/mail-archive/0052.html>. My question was > whether all the other people advocating non-ASCII URLs agree to that > problem statement, and in particular to the course of action for the > current draft revision. The problem I am having is that every time > I explain why one solution won't work, people defend it by describing > the merits of some other solution (or even some other problem). It seems > to me that if you can't agree on what problem is being solved, then > arguing about a solution is pointless. That problem statement is a bit verbose, but accurate. > I think there is a way to define UTF-8 preference for URL encoding > such that it won't break existing services, by forbidding transcoding > of already-encoded octets. However, I won't bother to explain that > until there is broad agreement on what needs to be solved. Yes, if you forbid transcoding of %80-%FF, and that representation were actually used in the filesystem, then the charset (or lack thereof) in the filesystem isn't a problem.