- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:41:54 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:04:05 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Or that the definition needs to be moved into a standalone spec. I guess I don't really see how that's different from fixing the URI 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. I think the problem is that currently no specification says how to construct a URI from a bunch of Unicode characters while taking into account that the path component always needs to be in UTF-8 and the query component in the document encoding. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 13:42:39 UTC