[idn] Fw: Moving Towards UTF8 vs ASCII(ACE) Forever

["James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

fyi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
To: <ietf@ietf.org>
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 Färber wrote:
>
> > Date: 30 Mar 2002 16:13:00 +0200
> > From: "[ISO-8859-1] Claus Färber" <claus@faerber.muc.de>
> > To: ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Moving Towards UTF8 vs ASCII(ACE) Forever
> >
> > Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> 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
> >
> >
>