Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

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

Lets be realistic:

1. RFC2277 is a result of IAB Character Workshop in March 1996.

2. RFC2277 is an BCP, not Standard Track.

3. RFC2277 say

   "Names are a problem, because people feel strongly about them, many of
   them are mostly for local usage, and all of them tend to leak out of
   the local context at times. RFC 1958 [RFC 1958] recommends US-ASCII
   for all globally visible names.

   This document does not mandate a policy on name internationalization,
   but requires that all protocols describe whether names are
   internationalized or US-ASCII."

Note: I am not saying we reject UTF-8. You need better technical
justification then to just say "it is obvious" or "it is stated in RFC2277".

-James Seng

> > The obvious choice for Internet protocols is UTF-8. See RFC 2277.
> > Systems that use 16-bit encodings internally, such as Windows, handle
> > UTF-8 conversions at the boundary between the system and the network.
> >
> > What's the problem?
>
> Totally agree, I thought the IETF has decided on using UTF8 on all
protocol.
> So I dont understand why someone is saying me trying to predict the future
> that all application and protocol should move towards the use of UTF8. It
> seems like we(UTF8 supporters) are taking the role of Mark Davis, trying
to
> promote the use of Unicode : )
>
> David Leung
>
>
>
>