Message-Id: <9305081825.AA07142@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
Subject: Re: Wrappers for URLs
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 May 1993 13:04:25 EDT."
<9305081704.AA13438@CS.UTK.EDU>
Date: Sat, 08 May 1993 14:25:03 -0400
> If the use of space in URL elements is going to be popular, that we
> should explore a convention for mapping spaces to a more readable
> representation than %20. The reason for exploring such a convention
> is to provide improved readability for non-silca life forms. We all
> recognize that people shouldn't be necessarily be decoding URLs, but
> it's going to happen despite any admonitions.
>
> We can select any character for space representation, as long as
> we recognize that we are eternally condemming said character to an
> inferior representation (%xx). Some characters that would not make
> good choices for this honor include period (used in hostnames) and
> slashes (used in filenames).
>
> My choice would be underscore, but then again I do not use it with
> any regularity. If anyone has strong reasons that underscores should
> be spared (or even better, recommendations for an alternate victim),
> please speak up.
Well, I used underscore = 20 hex in RFC 1342, so I guess I don't mind
it too much...and it's certainly better than not encoding them.
Is there anybody who cannot live with this?
Keith