W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1996

Re: Charsets revisited

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 08:45:53 PST
To: gtn@ebt.com
Cc: nms@nns.ru, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <96Jan24.084557pst.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>
> As for queries, I think that Larry's multipart/forms-data is the best
> way to go. Ideally, all forms data, including queries should be sent
> to the server as a message body, which *does* have a way of labelling
> the content. This also applies to the GET method.

a) multipart/form-data, not forms-data
b) there is no body in a GET method, and no reason to add one;

>>Any rationale behind having no quality factor for charset?
>>Is the order in the list significant? Is there any explicit
>>charset?

> I never noticed this, and agree that it seems strange.

There's no quality factor for accept-encoding either. For me, it works
best to think of 'charset' as a special kind of encoding, namely, one
that is used to encode sequence-of-character, while other kinds of
encodings are used to encode sequence-of-octet.
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 1996 08:49:14 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:43 EDT