W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:58:30 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A61DE1D1-ADB8-4E81-AFEC-1ECAD9DC4E25@mnot.net>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>

Yes, that's one path we can take, but we need to make that decision.

Separate from that, we need to determine whether omitting the C1  
controls when using iso-8859-1 was an oversight, or purposeful;  
there's more than once character in that set.


On 04/04/2008, at 8:34 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> 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.
> I see your point, but I think the reality at the moment is it's just
> permission to transport high valued octets, with %x20-7F being ASCII.
> I don't think anyone seriously treats the high values as iso-8859-1
> (except by accident).
> I'm thinking the current spec, plus current practice (assumed, not
> thoroughly investigated), has a nice loophole to move it to UTF-8
> without breaking anything.
> The key thing is "without breaking anything".  Even if there are a few
> implementations which treat the upper octets as iso-8859-1, they will
> continue working if we start sending UTF-8.
> -- Jamie

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 22:59:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC