Re: UTF-8 in URIs

Okay,

in other words, from the standards view, every browser submitting URLs not using
UTF-8 as encoding and every server interpreting %HH escapes otherwise than being
UTF-8 is violating standards? (Because Latin-1 in URLs only was an idea in
RFC1630 which everybody implemented but never got proposed standard.)

Because those two approaches are incompatible, I'm curious which implementation
is wrong. :-)

Xuân.

Dan Kohn wrote:

> You're misreading the standards.  RFC 1630 is informational.  Moreover, it
> begins with this blatant IESG note:
>
>    Note that the work contained in this memo does not describe an
>    Internet standard.  An Internet standard for general Resource
>    Identifiers is under development within the IETF.
>
> Simply put, RFC 2396 is that standard that was under development.
>
> RFC 2616 references RFC 1738 in the same sentence that it updates RFC 1630.
> At <http://www.normos.org/en/summaries/ietf/rfc/rfc2396.html>, you can see
> that RFC 2396 updates 1738.
>
> RFC 2616 should normatively reference RFC 2396 instead of 1630, but it went
> to last call before 2396 was published.  RFC 2396 perhaps also should have
> explicitly obsoleted RFC 1630, but this tends not to happen in the IETF
> because informational RFCs are not standards and so don't need to be
> obsoleted.  For more detail, see
> <http://www.normos.org/en/summaries/ietf/rfc/rfc2854.html>.
>
>                 - dan
> --
> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
> <http://www.dankohn.com>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [...text assuming RFC1630 to be standard...]

Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 20:01:29 UTC