repertoire and using their corresponding bytes in ASCII as the basis for determining percent-encoded sequences, this practice was relatively harmless; it was just assumed that characters and bytes mapped one-to-one and were interchangeable. The need to represent characters outside the ASCII range, however, grew quickly, and URI schemes and protocols often failed to provide standard rules for preparing character data for inclusion in a URI. Web applications consequently began using different multi-byte, stateful, and other non-ASCII-compatible encodings as the basis for percent-encoding, leading to ambiguities and difficulty interpreting URIs reliably. For example, many URI schemes and protocols based on RFCs 1738 and 2396 presume that the data characters will be converted to bytes according to some unspecified character encoding before being represented in a URI by unreserved characters or percent-encoded bytes. If the scheme does not allow the URI to provide a hint as to what encoding was used, or if the encoding conflicts with the use of ASCII to percent-encode reserved and unreserved characters, then the URI cannot be reliably interpreted. Some schemes fail to account for encoding at all and instead just suggest that data characters map directly to URI characters, which leaves it up to implementations to decide whether and how to percent-encode data characters that are in neither the reserved nor unreserved sets. Arbitrary character data is sometimes percent-encoded and used in non-URI situations, such as for password-obfuscation programs or other system-specific translation protocols. Current standard The generic URI syntax recommends that new URI schemes that provide for the representation of character data in a URI should, in effect, represent characters from the unreserved set without translation and should convert all other characters to bytes according to UTF-8, and then percent-encode those values. This suggestion was introduced in January 2005 with the publication of RFC 3986. URI schemes introduced before this date are not affected. Not addressed by the current specification is what to do with encoded character data. For example, in computers, character data manifests in encoded form, at some level, and thus could be treated as either binary or character data when being mapped to URI characters. Presumably, it is up to the URI scheme specifications to account for this possibility and require one or the other, but in practice, few, if any, actually do. Non-standard implementations There exists a non-standard encoding for Unicode characters: %uxxxx, where xxxx is a UTF-16 code unit represented