- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:22:29 -0400
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren scripsit: > >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? Because there are a bunch of specs that define them either independently or by reference to XLink, which is not a plausible place to centralize them. The original idea was to write a separate W3C document or RFC, but since the IRI RFC was being revised at the time, the opportunity to add LEIRIs to it was available. > >> 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. I agree that having such a specification is a Good Thing. There is no unique way to map a string of Unicode characters to a URI; IRIs use one approach, but if browsers use another, that should be written down in the IRI RFC or elsewhere. -- In my last lifetime, John Cowan I believed in reincarnation; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan in this lifetime, cowan@ccil.org I don't. --Thiagi
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 14:23:09 UTC