- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:18:20 -0500
- To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Friday, May 24, 2002, at 05:04 PM, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote: > Are you aware that a number of W3C specifications already support IRIs, > though not under that name? Examples are XML, XML Schema, XPointer and > XLink. For example, the XML specification states[1]: Yes, I was going to mention that... >> break many utilities which have made the assumption that RDF >> identifiers > Which utilities? All the current RDF tools, I think. I don't think any of them have been updated to support normalization or Unicode storage. Certainly all the tools I've written don't support it. If you take a look at the RDF Validator[1] you'll find that it %-encodes characters like ü, as most of the RDF tools I know do. >> I can understand presenting strings this way for user-display and >> user-entry but storing them this way and making them the official >> encoding seems to be going too far. I would think that simply using >> UTF-8 %-encoding would be fine for these purposes. > > How do you propose to display these strings in a meaningful manner? > %HH encoding is not invertible, except in the case of ASCII characters. > This is because the character encoding is not, in general, known. That is why I said UTF-8. I am fine with requiring a specific character encoding to make the process reversible. -- Aaron Swartz‽ [http://www.aaronsw.com/]
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 20:18:24 UTC