fyi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:31 AM Subject: Re: Moving Towards UTF8 vs ASCII(ACE) Forever
> There is now a standard way to encode URIs containing arbitrary UNICODE > characters. This is described in RFC 3275 (which is currently a Draft > Standard), in Section 4.3.3.1, and in the corresponding W3C document and > has appeared in other W3C documents, for exampe XML Base. > > Donald > > On 30 Mar 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Claus F�rber wrote: > > > Date: 30 Mar 2002 16:13:00 +0200 > > From: "[ISO-8859-1] Claus F�rber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Moving Towards UTF8 vs ASCII(ACE) Forever > > > > Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb/wrote: > > > second, "ASCII for the rest of our lives" is a mischaracterization. > > > IDNA allows applications to accept and present IDNs in native > > > form, without requiring all applications and infrastructure to > > > upgrade before IDNs can be used. [...] > > > users don't care whether IDN queries are encoded on the wire. > > > > This depends on your definition of "on the wire"; if you want to > > IDNs to just work, you would have to put the ASCII version into > > URIs, too. Users *do* care about URIs. If you put the UTF-8 > > version (%-escaped or maybe even unencoded according to a revision > > of the URI specs) in the URI, they won't work with leagacy > > software anyway (so ACE has no advantages). > > > > Claus > > -- > > ------------------------ http://www.faerber.muc.de/ ------------------------ > > OpenPGP: DSS 1024/639680F0 E7A8 AADB 6C8A 2450 67EA AF68 48A5 0E63 6396 80F0 > > > > >
