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

Re: Comments on charmod from Chris

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:47:39 +0200
Message-ID: <810051468.20020529174739@w3.org>
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

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