Re: Apology -- didn't read the critical section (was I18N)

In message <[email protected]>, Larry Masinter writes:
>So what about this:
>
>=================
>Use of Character Encodings
>
>When describing new URL schemes in which the elements of
>the URL are actually representations of sequences of characters,
>care should be taken not to introduce unnecessary variety in the 
>ways in which characters are encoded into octets and then into 
>URL characters. Unless there is some compelling reason for a 
>particular scheme to do otherwise, translating character sequences
>into UTF-8 [RFC 2044] and then subsequently using the %HH encoding
>for unsafe characters is recommended.
>
>Avoiding Variants
>
>If a protocol allows multiple ways to access the same resource,
>e.g., multiple alternative character encodings or byte sequences needed
>to access a particular resource, it is preferable for the URL scheme
>to reduce the variability, even at the cost of introducing a translation
>when mapping from URL to protocol. This will reduce the number
>of alternative URLs for the same resource, and encourage consistency.
>In particular, if a protocol supports multiple charset representations
>for strings and those representations include UTF-8, it would be
>preferable
>to use UTF-8 uniformly in the URL scheme than to allow all 
>protocol-compatible variants.

Fine with me,

.....Roy