Re: [URN] Re: URI documents

Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= (
Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:08:07 +0100

Message-Id: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 23:08:07 +0100
To: Larry Masinter <>
From: Patrik =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4ltstr=F6m?= <>
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: URI documents
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <>,
In-Reply-To: <>

At 10:02 1998-01-07 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>Patrik: a "character" is an abstract concept, as in an "octet". You're
>free to talk about characters in the URI string, but we have to talk
>about characters in multiple contexts. Given how difficult it has been
>to arrive at the current terminology and framework, I don't want to
>upset the rough consensus of the expert community in order to fit into
>your way of conceptualizing this relationship. So: I don't accept your
>proposal that this section be reworded to match your conceptualization.
>If what's there isn't CLEAR, then I can try to improve it; if there's
>some incompatbility with some other documents, we will have to resolve
>that incompatibility, but if it's just that YOU think about it in a
>different way, I hope you can find a way to see the world from a different

The problem that I saw was exactly that we have the concept of a
"character" in different contexts. _I_ know how this works (even though my
way of looking at things differ from others, and we should not argue about
those views) but there are others which don't know the difference between
the character you type in in a browser and the character which is in the
URI. I did get the question on the last IETF why the user have to type in
the '%' character in a URL when needed! I.e. no understanding on the
difference on what glyphs are visible in the user interface, and what
characters are in the URL is which is used by the software.

Well, I will stop here, as this should not disturb the other discussion,
which I am sorry for have interupted.



Email:            URL:
PGP: 4D38 91A4 27D9 C8B2 6975  D6BB 21D0 4C57 BD23 6602