Re: Globalizing URIs

Gavin Nicol (
Thu, 3 Aug 95 14:23:20 EDT

>I disagree. The person in charge of is in charge of
>creating the object-name part of the URLs. They can make up unambiguous
>names. End users don't make up URLs, or if they do, they shouldn't assume
>anything about how the server will respond to their requests.

This is not always true. The [EUC] part could specify one of a myriad
different coded character sets and encodings, with the following
octect string being different for each as well. I think it
unreasonable to expect the administrator to maintain a database of all
possible alias.

In addition, I really do think there needs to be a standard way of
specifying this kind of data. An example of *why* is spiders: they
walk all over the net indexing pages, and some of online indexes
display URL's as part of the textual data. Without a standard way of
specifying the coded character set and encoding, the URL's would
always have to be displayed in thier raw form.

>However, it should not be a change to the current URL RFC at this
>very late date. Feel free to create a seperate draft that describes
>this as an optional naming convention.

Well, I can sympathise with this position. The change I recommend
is backward compatible, and will be part of the upcoming I18N RFC.