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

Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:29:47 +0100
Message-ID: <47DA458B.3050601@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Brian Smith wrote:
> ...
> It is not clear whether or not the RFC 2047 mechanism can be used in
> quoted-string, because quoted-string is not defined in terms of "*TEXT",
> but rather a similar construct. Given all the places that quoted-string

???

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#basic.rules.quoted-string>:

     quoted-string  = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
     qdtext         = <any TEXT except <">>


> is used, should the RFC 2047 mechanism really be allowed in all these
> places?:
> 
> 	Accept
> 	Cache-Control
> 	Content-Encoding
> 	Content-Type
> 	ETag
> 	Expect
> 	If-Match
> 	If-None-Match
> 	If-Range
> 	Pragma
> 	TE
> 	Transfer-Encoding	
> 	Warning

I think this is the intent.

> Also, the Reason-phrase of the status line is defined as:
> 
> 	*<TEXT, excluding CR, LF>
> 
> But, is the RFC 2047 mechanism allowed in the Reason-phrase?

I would think so.

> ...
> Are there any headers fields that have *TEXT in their grammar?
> 
> If the specification is read strictly, then the RFC 2047 mechanism has
> never been allowed everywhere. And, if it is read liberally, then it is

I disagree.

> allowed in way too many places. And, if it is allowed anywhere, there
> should be some advice as to what encodings should be supported.

 From the headers above, where do you think it shouldn't be allowed?

I do agree that if we rely on RFC2047, we may also have to spend some 
time improving that document.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 09:37:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT