- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:47:39 +0200
- To: www-tag@w3.org, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
On Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 3:39:54 PM, Tim wrote: TB> Martin Duerst wrote: >> Your argument doesn't provide any support for Tim Bray's original >> proposal of "IRIs for documents, %hh for protocols". TB> Er, just a matter of protocol. That isn't my proposal. I don't TB> understand the issues well enough yet to have a proposal, but I'm TB> working on it. -Tim OK well I claim that I *do* understand this issue (bytes/characters/glyphs, or encoding vs document character set) well enough, since I have been dealing with it ever since I saw the SGML declaration for HTML 2.0 when I was part of the IETF HTML WG in 1995 and when I came across an early draft of the ISO "character glyph model" work in, er, 1997? when I was chairing the Fonts working group and have been tracking the issue ever since as part of my work. And after an abortive attempt to get an additional, I18N freindly syntactic form for URIs, which met fierce resistance, its clear that URIs are not going to change or evolve and so their flaws need to be coded around. Thus, I am happy to stand behind "IRIs for documents, %hh for protocols". -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 11:48:22 UTC