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

Re: i94, was: Does Reason-Phrase allow LWS?

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:30:56 +1100
Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0C29E252-DA7F-4EEC-88D2-C9D576AA7158@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

I take that back... from re-reading, it seemed like people were happy  
with just *( VCHAR / WSP ), so I left Reason-Phrase out. If I misread  
this, please respond to my 111 proposal.


On 04/04/2008, at 12:06 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> The relevance of i74 (at least before that issue got split; the  
> relevant issue is now 111) is that it allows RFC2047 encoding  
> explicitly.
>
> It'll still match the BNF, of course...
>
> I'm writing a proposal for 111 now; I'll write it in terms of  
> modifying
>   Reason-Phrase  = *( VCHAR / WSP )
> so that you can proceed with this independently.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 04/04/2008, at 5:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>>
>> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> There's an overlap with issue 74
>>> I don't understand section 5 in RFC 3987.  Are HTTP
>>> implementors forced to grok IRI comparison ?  What
>>> has this to do with I18N for <Reason-Phrase> ?  For
>>
>> That's what I'm asking you :-)
>>
>>> a say 404 the body can use any language and charset
>>> it likes.
>>
>> But the Reason-Phrase is not part of the body.
>>
>>> ...
>>> Sanity check, we don't want folding there, right ?
>>
>> I don't think so. That's what i94 is about.
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> BR, Julian
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 01:31:31 GMT

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