Unicode vs. the World

[Petite Abeille]

> On Dec 18, 2020, at 07:13, Katarina Eriksson <gmym at coopdot.com> wrote:
> 
> Help! I'm getting pulled in! 

Katarina! Thanks for dropping by! Welcome to the party!  🎉 🥳

> I'm assuming including me here was intentional. I truly can't tell if that is an accurate description of my possession.

Thanks for noticing. Timing is everything. See Cunningham's Law 🎅

> "I used to be in the US-ASCII only camp" refers to me no longer thinking requiring everything to be encoded to pass as US-ASCII is the best idea. This is me moving away from the status quo towards a possible compromise. Or am I missing where we're going?

Indeed, this is the crux of the issue, the notorious IRI vs. URI chasm: native UTF vs ASCII encoded. 

> I see no reason to %-encode those non-ASCII bytes in the client or anywhere else. Surely I have missed something obvious somewhere. Can anyone help me?

Genau. As it stands, the spec mandates URIs -therefore ASCII only- making UTF IRIs V E R B O T E N! NICHT GUT! NOT COMPLIANT! 🚫 🙅

Now that we all took time to survey the lay of the land, the question is: should the  specification be amended to refer to IRI (urn:ietf:rfc:3987), instead of URI (urn:ietf:rfc:3986)? 

As simple as that.

That's all folks! 👯‍♀️