W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > October 2000

Re: UTF-8 in URIs

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:59:48 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20001011115417.032b3b40@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Xuan Baldauf <xuan--uri@baldauf.org>, Dan Kohn <dan@dankohn.com>
Cc: uri@w3c.org
Hello Xuan,

Can you please read RFC 2396, in particular section 2.1.
Then you will see that both a server interpreting %HH as
UTF-8 and a server interpreting %HH as something else are
legal.

Regards,   Martin.

At 00/10/11 02:01 +0200, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
>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. :-)
>
>Xu穗.
>
>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 Wednesday, 11 October 2000 02:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC