Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

Keld J|rn Simonsen (keld@dkuug.dk)
Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:41:33 +0200


Message-Id: <199704221041.MAA14628@dkuug.dk>
From: keld@dkuug.dk (Keld J|rn Simonsen)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:41:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>,
        John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
Cc: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU, uri@bunyip.com,

"Martin J. Duerst" writes:

> You might come to the state where you have to view UTF-8 with
> a terminal emulator or editor not set to view it, where the
> above effects are occurring, but this should actually be rare.
> And it wouldn't be better if you looked at ideographic characters
> with an 8859-1 editor or so.
> 
> First, we don't want to have UTF-8 and 8859-1 (or any other legacy
> coding) mixed in the same document. Once everything is working as
> envisioned, if you transport a Western European URL in 8859-1,
> you transport the characters, as 8859-1. It's only when this is
> changed to %HH, or to binary 8-bit URLs as such which lack any
> information on character encoding, that you change to UTF-8.

Pardon me, should the %HH notation not be transparant,
in the sense of a transfer encoding of MIME? It should not be dependent
on whether the encoding is 8859-1, UTF-8 or SJIS or whatever.
%HH encodes bytes, unrelated to encoding.

Keld