- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:12:27 -0800
- To: <www-tag@w3.org>
I'm not in favor of redefining the term "URI" in terms of byte sequences instead of 'sequence of characters'. I think there is a lot of strength in the fact that a URI encoded in EBCDIC is the "same" as one encoded in ASCII and with the "same" characters. (in this case, same[URI] is the baseline equality for URI equivalence, and same[characters] is the equivalence of characters after transcoding.) As long as URIs have a restricted repertoire of characters, there is no problem. Part of the work for IRIs is to insure that two IRIs which have the same characters are equivalent even when represented in two different charsets, especially when the charsets have different character repertoires or non-1:1 mappings. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 02:13:04 UTC