- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:00:42 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian -- sorry, I mean to say that we need to consider excluding C1. Jamie -- if we later decided to allow UTF-8, we'd of course have to figure out how it fit into the overall picture. This sub-issue is just about whether we should allow C1 in iso-8859-1, as the spec is currently written. Cheers, On 04/04/2008, at 7:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Jamie Lokier wrote: >> I agree with everything Julian said, except: >> Julian Reschke wrote: >>> TEXT already allows C1 controls (and always did) (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-latest.html#rule.TEXT >>> >): >>> >>> TEXT = %x20-7E | %x80-FF | LWS >>> ; any OCTET except CTLs, but including LWS >>> >>> That being said, I'd like it to exclude C1 controls. >> If C1 controls _in the form of octets %x80-9F_ are excluded, and HTTP >> agents begin to reject TEXT containing those octets, it will be >> harder >> to transition to UTF-8 later. (In case you'd forgotton, UTF-8 uses >> those octet values for normal characters). > > No I didn't. Good point. > >> ... > > BR, Julian -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 21:01:39 UTC