W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Comments on charmod from Chris

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:55:58 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020528214854.0429ae30@localhost>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
At 14:22 02/05/28 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>So lets invent a new protocol called toto: for purposes of discussion,
>and make it 8-bit clean and no mention of %hh escaping. So, I can send
>binary data across a toto transport. But, doesn't the current
>definition of URI still prevent me from sending the niceKanji
>version of IRI?.

You just have to say what you are sending over. Either you say
that it's an IRI encoded as UTF-8 (you have to say that it's
encoded as UTF-8 if the protocol is defined in terms of bytes,
because IRIs are defined in terms of characters, and you most
probably need to define some additional escaping to make sure
you can recognize the end of the IRI, e.g. in a HTTP-like case,
you would specify that space has to be escaped as %20).

The alternative is to say that you use URIs, but without the
%hh-escaping for bytes >= %80. In contrast to the first solution,
this would use direct binary even if the URI contained legacy
encoded characters.

Anyway, you can send what you want, you just have to specify it.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 09:59:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:51 UTC