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

Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:15:02 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g3g6sn$56d$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

>>> 3b) Support 
>>* <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.4>,
>>> but only use UTF-8 encoding in producers.
 
>> -1  Tiny mazes, all different... :-(
[...]
>> no MUST utf-8 here, and "default" iso-8859-1 there, and a big
>> mess everywhere.   
 
> Well, we need one encoding that can represent all Unicode code
> points, and UTF-8 comes to mind for that.

Sure, maybe I don't understand what you are proposing.  The 2231
example is:

| Content-Type: application/x-stuff;
|  title*=us-ascii'en-us'This%20is%20%2A%2A%2Afun%2A%2A%2A

This would also work for utf-8, iso-8859-1, and windows-1252 --
these charsets use the same encoding for u+0020, u+002A, "This",
and "fun".

I thought that you want to limit the choice to utf-8, which is
kind of odd in an environment with "default" iso-8859-1.  Maybe
somebody has implemented RFC 2231 in the last decade for HTTP.
(without those odd continuations relevant for mail, hopefully)

> Support for RFC2231 in UAs would be totally pointless if we
> couldn't require recipients to understand it. So why produce
> anything else?

How can an UA not understand iso-8859-1 if it is the "default",
or not support us-ascii as proper subset of utf-8, or not grok
windows-1252, which is what folks anyway do when they allegedly
use iso-8859-1 ?  You could say "MUST at least support us-ascii
and utf-8, and using one of these charsets is RECOMMENDED", or 
similar.

 Frank
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 12:13:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT