- From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:56:24 -0400
- To: uri@bunyip.com
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
À 09:56 24-04-97 PDT, Larry Masinter a écrit : >I think given its likely controversial nature, we should clearly >make these recommendations in a separate RFC, and perhaps with >a new working group. Meaning what? Two separate standards? Or worse, a standard and an experimental/informational/BCP? I thought we had already buried that one. Who wants a two-tier Web, with only the lower tier internationalized, raise your hand! Let's see: we would have an i18n RFC that would allow URLs to contain most any characters, and a (possibly Draft) standard that would say "All URLs consist of a restricted set of characters..." (we know which): clear contradiction. Further, the (possibly Draft) standard would still be in contradiction with widespread current practice, would still be technically unsound (incomplete mapping between octets and characters), and I don't see that it could gather a consensus when it can't today for these very reasons. No progress. On the other hand, would there be a consensus for the new draft to create a new, separate standard, in contradiction in at least one respect with the (possibly Draft) standard? I doubt it. No progress here either. Please let's drop the separate draft idea for good. There is not an ASCII-only Internet and another for the rest of the world, so let's not even try to do that in one of our most important standards. Regards, -- François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547 Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561
Received on Thursday, 24 April 1997 22:57:25 UTC