- 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