- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:39:06 -0700
- To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, URI <uri@w3.org>, Joe Gregorio <joe@bitworking.org>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
On Sep 16, 2008, at 4:08 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > John Cowan wrote: >> Phillips, Addison scripsit: >>> We have pretty good knowledge of what makes a good Unicode >>> identifier. If we're going to assign variable names in a new pattern >>> language, why are we limiting it to alphanum? The software we are >>> linking to (the part generating the variables that get >>> substituted in) >>> may not--indeed probably does not--have that same limitation. >> Given that URIs are ASCII-only, I think it is sufficient to have >> identifiers be ASCII-only too. > > Actually, I thought they were opaque bytestreams wrapped in ASCII, > e.g. > %80 or %FF in a URI should be valid in the resource path, no? Yes, so one answer would be to allow percent-encoded-UTF-8 in the variable names as well. That would address the issue of external field names being non-ASCII without introducing the horror of non-octet-based name comparisons. ....Roy
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 23:39:58 UTC