From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [davidsmith@acm.org: [patch] url-hexify-string does not follow W3C spec] Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:06:27 +0900 Organization: Faculty of Science, Chiba University Message-ID: References: <44CDDF7A.8060404@gnu.org> <87lkq9ivgf.fsf@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1154484418 2692 80.91.229.2 (2 Aug 2006 02:06:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 02:06:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Smith , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 02 04:06:54 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G868L-0001rr-8h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:06:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G868K-0000ZD-Qp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:06:52 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8682-0000U6-CL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:06:34 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G8681-0000SU-6o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:06:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G8680-0000SE-Vw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:06:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [133.82.132.2] (helo=mathmail.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G86Az-00058Q-SL; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:09:38 -0400 Original-Received: from church.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp (church [133.82.132.36]) by mathmail.math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F1E2C8F; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:06:27 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Thien-Thi Nguyen In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.0.50 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:57971 Archived-At: >>>>> On 01 Aug 2006 10:47:07 -0400, Thien-Thi Nguyen said: > conversion to utf-8 is per the RFC, which seems to be the primary > context for this function; avoiding that conversion means > noncompliance w/ the RFC. Do you mean RFC 3986 by "the RFC"? IIUC, it refers to UTF-8 in the following 3 parts: * 2.5 Identifying Data, 3rd paragraph How to interpret a unreserved character as an octet. (It also refers to other superset of the US-ASCII character encoding). * 2.5 Identifying Data, last paragraph Encoding of a URI component that represents *textual data* consisting of characters from UCS for *a new URI scheme*. * 3.2.2 Host Encoding of a registered name that represents a host. So, I don't think that avoiding UTF-8 conversion for non-textual data or for a URI scheme that has existed as of RFC 3986 deviates from the RFC. YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp