- From: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 06:47:31 -0400
- To: URI Interest Group <uri@w3.org>
Frank Ellermann wrote to the URI Interest Group’s mailing list (<mailto:uri@w3.org>) on 13 October 2005 in “Re: RFC 2822 email addresses in tag URIs” (<mid:434E6B82.3EBA@xyzzy.claranet.de>, <http://www.w3.org/mid/434E6B82.3EBA@xyzzy.claranet.de>): > if you say "NO" to percent-encoding where necessary - > like always for UTF-8 at least in the LHS - then I'd think > that this could be a mistake. When the time comes for the next specification of the “tag” scheme, specify tags as IRIs that don’t need percent-encoding. > And for some characters you > need it anyway - I'm not sure, what about say "#" i the LHS ? I came to the position that it is better to forbid certain e-mail addresses in “tag” URIs than to allow percent-encoding within the <emailAddress> portion. > Sure, you don't need to support UTF-8 immediately. But when > it's available in some years it could be nice, e.g. the Czech > example in the Jabber URI draft: > > <xmpp:ji%C5%99i@%C4%8Dechy.example/v%20Praze> > > The part ji%C5%99i@%C4%8Dechy.example could be a future IMA. The problem is that percent-encoding is not human-tractable in the case of most humans. The solution, as stated before, is to make tags into IRIs. -- Etan Wexler.
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2005 10:44:29 UTC