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

Re: draft-holtman-http-safe-00.txt

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 09:24:13 -0400
Message-Id: <199610101324.JAA02286@nathaniel.ebt>
To: fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU
Cc: koen@win.tue.nl, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>This is not true.  The only time that web internationalization might
>impact the choice of POST vs GET is when it is not known what the input
>character set will be *and* it is possible for the user agent to submit
>data in some character set other than what is expected *and* the form
>does not contain an entry box for the user to select which particular
>character set they are using *and* nobody has convinced the browser
>community to include a standard hidden form field containing the charset
>whenever the charset is not the same as that of the output form.

Incorrect. I18N needs message bodies if any one of the following is true.

1) The coded character set or encodiung of transmitted data is
   known and it is anything other than ISO 8859-1.
2) The server indicates that it can accept multiple coded character
   sets and encodings, and one from the list is being used for the
   transmitted data.

>In other words, i18n has nothing to do with it.

I think I18N has everything to do with the choice of using message
bodies or not.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 1996 13:22:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:15 EDT