- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:16:59 +0900
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "Roy Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>, <uri@w3.org>
At 21:56 02/07/20 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>Larry, I think a new URI WG and spec revision would be great as long as
>the public has read and write access to the lists.
Which is always the case for an IETF WG.
>Roy, I remember you saying something about adding a note that UTF-8 was
>standard in the new document (replacing "It is expected that a systematic
>treatment of character encoding within URI will be developed as a future
>modification of this specification.")
I think we need to replace this sentence with something explaining
the tendency to move towards UTF-8 (which is almost the same, but clearly
different from 'it's always UTF-8').
>Perhaps we could have some sort of signal, ala the Unicode BOM (Byte Order
>Marker) to show the encoding was UTF-8?
Well, first, there is a saying 'if it looks like UTF-8, it is UTF-8'.
For details, see
[Duer97] Duerst, M., "The Properties and Promises of UTF-8",
Proc. 11th International Unicode Conference, San Jose
, September 1997, <http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/mml/
mduerst/papers/PDF/IUC11-UTF-8.pdf>.
Second, it would be weird to use a special marker for the 'usual case'
and leave all the other cases unmarked.
Regards, Martin.
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 08:20:59 UTC