- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:04:33 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:54:09 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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. > > There is nothing that needs to be fixed in the URI spec. > > If other specs accept invalid URIs, then those specs also need to define > how to do that. So why do we get LEIRIs in iri-bis? >> 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. > > But again, that's not a problem with URI or IRI, right? I'm not quite sure what you mean with again. Also, the URI/IRI spec seems like the logical place to define this. I suppose that's the reason the IRI spec is being updated to handle LEIRIs. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:05:18 UTC