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

Re: charset flap

From: Erik van der Poel <erik@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:51:36 -0700
Message-Id: <31D2D838.4B76@netscape.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/984
Larry Masinter wrote:
> > Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or its
> > subsets MUST be labeled with an appropriate charset value.

How do you parse this sentence?

1. Data in (character sets other than "ISO-8859-1") or (its subsets)...


2. Data in character sets other than ("ISO-8859-1" or its subsets)...

> In HTTP/1.1 _response_ messages, it is possible,
> and will be recommended implementation advice, that for graceful
> deployment a server might respond differently to a HTTP/1.0 request
> and a HTTP/1.1 request.

It would be nice if something like this was explicitly mentioned in the
spec. Is it? If so, where?

> We discussed how current servers that were implementing HTTP/1.1 but
> not upgrading CGI programs might label their data. It seemed
> reasonable to assume that at a given site, if the CGI program did not
> itself supply a charset parameter for the content-type of the return
> value, the server might supply one itself based on the system default.

So you're suggesting that the server actually parse the output of the
CGI program to check for charset, and, if absent, add charset? Are
server implementors prepared to take this performance hit? Or are they
already parsing CGI output for other reasons?

Received on Thursday, 27 June 1996 12:28:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC