- From: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@Adobe.COM>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:09:20 -0500
- To: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
At 3:11 PM -0500 3/1/01, John Stracke wrote: >Dan Brotsky wrote: > >> > <D:href >>D:original-charset="utf-8">http://some.host/C%C3%A9sar.txt</D:href> >> >> This certainly would be a helpful thing for servers to say to clients >> (although maybe in some other way), and I second your request to JimW >> about adding it as an issue. > >It might be better to wait and see whether IRIs take off >(<draft-masinter-url-i18n-07.txt>; broadly, the approach is to >define that IRIs >are like URLs, but in Unicode; to use an IRI in a context that >demands a URL, you >encode it in UTF-8, then apply %-encoding as normal). No sense creating two >separate mechanisms to solve the same problem. I'm a big fan of IRI's (as you can tell from my earlier emails) but I think the issue here is the one of what to do when clients submit URIs with other encodings that the server returns to them in a body. Even when servers go to IRI discipline for URLs they generate, they shouldn't necessarily break clients who expect to get back what they asked for :^). Here's another way of phrasing this issue that makes it not be about encoding: The DAV spec says that it is *resources* that have properties, not *urls*, and that many different urls can refer to the same resource. When a client requests info about a resource by using a particular URL, but the server sends back information about a resource named by another URL, what guarantees does the client have about the returned URL: 1. Is it guaranteed to refer, in the context of this response, to the resource that the client asked about in the request? 2. Is it guaranteed *always* to refer to that same resource? (In some sense, is there the same info in this response that one could glean from a permanent redirect?) In this formulation, note that differences in %-escaping conventions can lead to different URLs that encode the same octet-stream. Are there special conventions that apply in this case? dan
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2001 17:09:55 UTC