W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2004

Re: draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-02.txt

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 08:56:54 -0700
Message-Id: <p0610050bbcb2e0fbf0e7@[63.202.92.148]>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, uri@w3.org

At 11:10 AM +0200 4/26/04, Julian Reschke wrote:
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-rfc1738bis-02.txt>
>
>Section 2.7, file:
>
>I still think that if the current RFC is updated, the new version 
>should at least recommend one specific encoding for representing 
>non-ASCII characters in filenames (and of course this one should be 
>UTF-8).

This implies that filesystems use a character encoding (as compared 
to pure binary with no text-like semantics). That is probably true in 
well over 90% of all file systems.

However, it also implies that character encoding is choosable by 
users, and I think that is not the case in many systems. That is, 
many systems will only allow an ISO 8859-x encoding for file names. 
What you are asking is that the names in those cases must be 
re-encoded from the "native" encoding to the standard encoding.

That will (a) induce errors, particularly when people don't bother to 
re-encode and (b) increase interoperability. How do people feel about 
this balance?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 12:01:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:07 UTC