Re: URL internationalization!

> > > In the sense that in the "canonical form" of an URL, only
> > > ASCII is allowed, my current proposal doesn't change this.
> > 
> > "only ASCII is allowed"? OK.
> OK in the minimal TRANSPORT format of an URL. Not in a URL in general.
> ASCII can be used to describe words in English.

It's Martin who tried to confuse the terminology.

> > > In terms of encoding (from characters to octets), chaos is the
> > > current state,
> > 
> > As you said "only ASCII is allowed", there is no chaos.
> The chaos is because it is not acceptable for many of us to just
> use ascii in our urls, we all use the local character set in our urls.
> If the receiver end does not use the same character set, the url will
> look like a mess at the receiver.

Thus, the answer is "only ASCII is allowed".

> > ISO 2022 has been the law, dispite all the attempt of you trying
> > introduce the chaos.
> I have never used ISO 2022 and do not want to introduce that chaos that
> it is for me.

I daily use ISO 2022 and know it has nothing to do with chaos.

I see several times ISO 10646 introduces chaos.

> There is NO problem. When my system receives an URL from a place with
> Devanagali or from a search engine with characters my system cannot display,
> it should display those characters using the %HH encoding of the UTF-8 code
> for those characters.
> I then have no problem to use them, type them on my keyboard or to write
> them on a paper.

That you have no problem to read the paper you wrote has nothing
to do with the impossibility for someone else to read the paper.

Note that you are merely repeating defeated points. Read ML archive.

							Masataka Ohta