- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:04:05 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:44:32 +0200, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> Well, the URI spec doesn't need to. It's an error. >> >> If HTML5 spec needs to define the behavior because that's what the UAs >> do, that's fine and can be done there. > > This would mean that XMLHttpRequest and most likely CSS and related > specs all need to define that or reference HTML5 if they don't want to > do it themselves. Or that the definition needs to be moved into a standalone spec. >>> The second is with IRIs and character encodings other than UTF-8. >>> While browsers reliably encode non-ASCII characters in the path using >>> UTF-8, non-ASCII characters in the query component are encoded using >>> the document's character encoding, and not UTF-8, which is >>> incompatible with how the IRI spec defines things. >> >> Could you please be more specific? Any URI is a IRI, so a query >> component based on an encoding other than UTF-8 still is a legal IRI. > > It's also transmitted as another encoding than UTF-8 (while the path > component _is_ transmitted as UTF-8). Yes. It's still a legal URI, thus a legal IRI. BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 12:04:51 UTC