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 11:51:58 +1100
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Message-Id: <99C17DCC-576F-423A-92D5-19DBE2928DEE@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>


On 02/04/2008, at 4:54 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 1. We are considering allowing UTF-8 in content, specifically (a) in  
> newly defined headers, and/or (b) in places where TEXT is now.

This will remain in i74, now Character Encodings in TEXT.

> 2. We intend to remove the "blanket" RFC2047 encoding associated  
> with TEXT and (if kept) move it to the definitions of the individual  
> rules, so that it's clear where such encoding may occur. Candidates  
> for this include Reason-Phrase, filename-parm, warn-text, as well as  
> the comments in field-content.

new issue: <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/111>

> 3. If RFC2047 encoding is used / referenced, we need to more  
> carefully specify its use; e.g., regarding what encoding forms are  
> allowable, line length limits, charsets used, folding.

Expanding #63 (now: RFC2047 encoded words) to include other aspects  
(63 and 111 can probably be addressed at the same time).

> 4. From also deserves a look.

Looking at p2, 10.3, I see we've already updated this to reference  
RFC2822. Does anyone feel we need to have a separate issue for this?

> 5. Either the definition of TEXT or CTL may need the C1 control  
> characters added.

Also in i74.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 00:52:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT