- From: Edward Cherlin <cherlin@newbie.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:44:35 -0700
- To: uri@bunyip.com
François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> a écrit: >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! How about this: Two coordinated standards, where we put in some language here acknowledging the work on international URLs, and then we take up that problem in its own document, since it is important enough to do that way. Then that document can acknowledge all of the other work on internationalizing the Net, and take over the job of coordinating it in one place. When I say "language acknowledging the work" I mean something that permits changes in the direction of implementing Unicode, with appropriate measures for backward compatibility, and forbids taking any other new direction. Since the other new document will start with the proposal to use UTF-8/%HH in URLs, and will be acknowledged here, we can prevent divergence and worsening chaos without offending backers of the current and proposed standard, and we can carry out the necessary experiments in peace. If that statement is too convoluted, try this: We agree on splitting this document in two procedurally, and letting one segment go on to the next stage while we write the other, but we treat them logically as part of the same proposal, making sure that the segments are compatible from the start. Then we will have a working improvement to the current standard, and a clear direction for development of the next version, which is also a clear guide for implementors and users. As you know, I have argued strenuously for allowing UTF-8 in URLs. Larry now says he is willing to do that, but prefers a different procedure than putting the experiment into this draft. I don't care much about procedure personally, and would be willing to go either way. François and Martin now need to say whether there is an alternative procedure they can live with, such as sufficiently tight coordination between the current document and the proposed one. They and Larry could propose language for coordinating the documents. Anyone else could suggest something useful. What do you say? [snip] >Regards, > > >-- >François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> >Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal >Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547 >Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561 -- Edward Cherlin cherlin@newbie.net Everything should be made Vice President Ask. Someone knows. as simple as possible, NewbieNet, Inc. __but no simpler__. http://www.newbie.net/ Attributed to Albert Einstein
Received on Friday, 25 April 1997 21:27:09 UTC