- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 11:31:07 +0100
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Christophe Lauret <clauret@weborganic.com>, Jan Algermissen <jan.algermissen@nordsc.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, URI <uri@w3.org>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: > Private Unicode ranges were originally banned everywhere, because they are > not intended for public interchange. We allowed them in the query part, > because sometimes you may want to use them as a payload. That's how we got > to where we are. [If it interests you, this happened in August 2003, see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duerst-iri-03 and > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-duerst-iri-03.txt.] > > If you have a good reason to change that, please tell us. Alignment with HTML. There's actually another change required for that, see https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19743 for details. I'm also happy for HTML to change, but it seems to me that for code points higher than U+007F we should have some kind of consistent set of rules across syntaxes, unless the the code points are problematic for that particular format. > Looking at the bigger picture, there are literally dozens groups of > characters/codepoints like private use characters in Unicode that are almost > never used, and almost always a bad idea, in IRIs. We could spend lots of > hours discussing the merit of including or excluding them, but I think we > can use our time for better stuff. I'm not interested in a code-point-by-code-point discussion, just the bigger picture, and consistency in requirements across the formats we develop. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 5 November 2012 10:31:36 UTC