- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:00:05 +0200
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
On Tuesday, April 15, 2003, 5:51:05 PM, Ian wrote: IBJ> Hello, IBJ> The minutes of the 14 Apr 2003 TAG teleconf are IBJ> available as HTML [1] and as text below. I note that frequently in this transcript, the word 'canonicalize' has been used, sometimes to mean canonicalize (as per RFC2396bis) and sometimes to mean hexify. Its really not clear that these are the same thing. in particular, the canonical form of an IRI is the full original unicode characters, now whatever you have to do to jam it down a 7-bit pipe. Just to note that sometimes, what I have said was not fully captured or was slightly misrepresented. Often I said hexify and the transcript says canonicalize. I didn't spot this at the time, because there was a lot of fast and sometimes parallel discussion. To quote martin MD: IRI spec says explicitly "You don't do this unless you have to." I would not like people to get the impression from reading these minutes that i am in favour of 'canonicalizing' IRIs by hexifying them. Like Martin says and like the IRI spec says, only do this as a last resort when using antiquated transport protocols. Better is to use whatever method (quoted-unreadable, base64, ncr, \u) the environment provides to preserve the original characters. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 17:00:19 UTC