Subject: RE: Labels

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:03:54 -0500

I don't think it helps to say that they are URL-encoded if we are
required to transmit it in a URL.  These leaves the client wondering
whether they got the label in the URL-encoded form or not (e.g. when
it appears in a Revision-Selector header.  I believe it will be simpler
and less error-prone if we just say that they are UTF-8 Unicode characters
that have been URL-encoded.  Any client that handles URL's will be able
to handle URL-encoding, and assumedly any WebDAV client will need to be
able to handle URL's.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 9:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Labels

<geoff>
I agree with those on the mailing list who have argued that it is sufficient

to internationalize labels to the extent that URL's are internationalized, 
which does not include tagging with language and charset.
</geoff>

Jim W. pointed out that URLs are exempted from the internationallization 
rules.  I suggest that we say labels are UTF-8 Unicode characters; and the 
resulting bytes are URL-encoded if we are required to transmit it in a URL 
(unlikely).

Tim