- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:25:42 +0100
- To: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Graham Klyne > Sent: 30 April 2002 18:22 > To: Aaron Swartz > Cc: RDF Core; Jeremy Carroll > Subject: Re: Clarification of charmod-uri > > > At 01:55 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote: > >On 2002-04-29 05:49 AM, "Graham Klyne" > <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote: > > > > >> 1) Is there some reason why these Unicode characters cannot > be %encoded? I > > > The reason I heard was that the I18N group would like the > user's original > > > character input to be preserved as much as possible. If > %-encoding is > > > applied, it's not possible to tell if the user supplied it of the > > application. > > > >This doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the application introduce > >%-encoded characters, and if it did, couldn't it introduce them > even if the > >URI was not %-encoded? > > What I was trying to say is that if the reading application is > required to > convert Unicode URIs to %-escaped form to satisfy a requirement for > US-ASCII only in the RDF, then information about exactly what the user > supplied is lost. > > (But I may well have misunderstood this ... I'm not set to defend this, > just trying to explain what I thought I heard.) > This is a concern of the I18N guys. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 1 May 2002 04:26:36 UTC