Yet Timbl's "Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW," RFC 1630 (not said
in RFC 1738 to have been updated or made obsolete by RFC 1738), says:
The completeness requirement is easily met by allowing
particularly strange or plain binary names to be encoded in base
16 or 64 using the acceptable characters.
which clearly envisions the use of an underlying coded charset other
than ASCII, not to mention "binary names." Completeness is
defined thusly:
Complete It is possible to encode any naming
scheme.
And I would think that would include filenames, etc., in Chinese.
Is RFC 1630 out of date? am I missing something between 1630
and 1738? is the underlying charset to be defined in the RFCs
standardizing particular URL schemes, and thus not handled in
1738?
Regards,
-- Terry Allen (terry@ora.com) O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. Editor, Digital Media Group 101 Morris St. Sebastopol, Calif., 95472A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html or http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html
Current HTML 2.0 spec: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-html-spec-04.txt