W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Definition of 'charset' in RFC2616

From: i ahmed <ahmedat@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:54:08 +0500
Message-ID: <d8e1eb290502190854e74f62d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Bjoern Hoehrmann you are right
________________________
http://www.letsjoy.com
+9865566365


On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:46:00 +0900, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear HTTP experts,
> 
> RFC 2616 currently says, in 3.4, Character Sets:
> 
>    HTTP character sets are identified by case-insensitive tokens. The
>    complete set of tokens is defined by the IANA Character Set registry
>    [19].
> 
>        charset = token
> 
>    Although HTTP allows an arbitrary token to be used as a charset
>    value, any token that has a predefined value within the IANA
>    Character Set registry [19] MUST represent the character set defined
>    by that registry. Applications SHOULD limit their use of character
>    sets to those defined by the IANA registry.
> 
> The references then give
> 
>   [19] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", STD 2, RFC 1700,
>         October 1994.
> 
> This is a very old snapshot of the IANA charset registry, missing
> a few important entries (such as UTF-8).
> 
> Based on this, we have seen claims saying that utf-8 cannot be used
> in HTTP. While I would personally consider such claims somewhere
> between 'bogus' and 'doubtful', it would be great if the HTTP spec
> were changed to directly point to the IANA registry if and when
> updated in the future.
> 
> Regards,     Martin.
> 
> P.S.: As a separate, but related issue, it might also be a good
>       idea to remove the never actually effective default of
>       iso-8859-1.
> 
>
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2005 17:00:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:39 GMT