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

Re: charset flap

From: Mike McCool <mlm@netscape.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:44:32 -0700
Message-Id: <31D2F2B0.6F7C@netscape.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: erik@netscape.com, 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/986
> > 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?
> Somehow we have to manage the upgrade of HTTP/1.0 to HTTP/1.1 for
> existing CGI programs. HTTP/1.1 places a number of new requirements on
> responses in order to be compliant. Either the CGI programs will have
> to themselves be upgraded and vetted, or else the servers have to
> parse the output and validate it if they're going to be labelled
> HTTP/1.1. I think this is a general requirement for protocol upgrades
> when a gateway is involved.
> This is an issue for any kind of plugin/API/CGI web server, isn't it?

Servers already have to look through the headers for the Location:
and Status: headers anyway.  Adding a Charset: header if one does
not already exist should not be a problem.
      ---- mlm@netscape.com * http://www.netscape.com/people/mlm/ ----
Received on Thursday, 27 June 1996 13:57:05 UTC

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