bringing this back onto the newsgroup and cc'ing rick.
Andreas Otte wrote:
>Hi!
>
>Judson Valeski wrote:
>
>>We decided on the following proposal. dougt, rpotts, chak, dmose, gagan, valeski,
>and nhotta attended the meeting.
>>
>>URI's would accept, and store, only UTF8 encoded strings. Protocols not able to
>handle UTF8 (HTTP for example), would access the charset attribute (proposed) off of
>nsIURI to convert back to the original string. The charset would be set by the URI
>creator as they have the best charset context. Is nsIURI the right
>>place for the charset attribute?
>>
>
>I think it is. Also get away with the char representation of the uri
>components. Use strings instead.
>
>
>>The current ASCII % encoding would be removed from the internal URI representation.
>Again, this encoding would be pushed out to the protocol level.
>>
>
>So we will have a two levels of %-enconding? I don't think the
>%-encoding can be removed completly. The first level applies to all URIs
>and masks reserved chars as the current stuff does. On a second level
>non ascii chars can be encoded as the protocol needs it.
>
As I understood it, there would be no % encoding at all unless a
protocol (say HTTP) needed it, in which case, it would pull the UTF8
data out of the uri object, and % encoding it on it's own.
Jud
