- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 17:43:07 -0600
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:57:17PM +0000, Phillips, Addison wrote: > Yes, I completely agree that NFC is the right choice and does the > least harm. For wire-format exchange the ideal would be for NFC to be > the rule. > > file:// is a little different, since it is mainly trying to represent It may not be for a wire-format, but it exists nonetheless to interoperate, even if locally-only, between different apps, possibly portable apps. Therefore the issue comes up. > the characters/byte codes the file system is using while still trying > to be recognizable to the user. Maybe it doesn't matter, though: most Even on a typical Unix system that doesn't help: the filesystem typically treats filenames as octet strings not including '/'. > user-agents provide a dialog box, auto-complete, or some other > mechanism. Perhaps the rule is "NFC for the URI, file system/user > agent provides re-normalization or normalization-independent selection > for file systems that use a different normalization form, > de-normalized files use escapes (== don't do that)"? This comes up in many places (NFSv4, WebDAV, ...). Nico --
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:43:30 UTC