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

Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 16:21:35 +0100
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <fre50s$ret$1@ger.gmane.org>

Brian Smith wrote:

> If RFC 2047 cannot be used in quoted-string, then there is no way
> to internationalize the Link header as it is defined in RFC 2068
> or in the latest draft that Mark just linked to.

As explained you don't need a <quoted-string> as soon as you have
RFC 2047 encoded words.  Just remove the quotes and 2047-encode
what was within to get an "ordinary" unquoted word =?...?.?...?=

Your premise is apparently wrong.   Looking in RFC 2068 19.6.2.4
I find:

| link-extension = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]

Four cases for the right hand side (value):  A simple <token>,
or a (Latin-1) <quoted-string>, or a 2047 encoded word in any
charset, or for longer strings the magic specified in RFC 2231.

Not good enough is this detail:  "title" "=" quoted-string
To "fix" it we use  "title" "=" ( token | quoted-string )  in
2616bis, transformed into the corrresponding proper ABNF, and
then it's the same as above:

Use token, quoted-string, encoded word, or a folded value as
explained in RFC 2231 for a longer non-Latin string.

This covers all <quoted-string> cases in RFC 2068 19.6.2.4.
What's missing, is <sgml-name> not more what it used to be ?

> Atom and HTML 5 (will) allow internationalized link relation
> names, and IRIs as link relation names.

RFC 2068 clearly says URI, and all IRIs have equivalent URIs.
If that is not good enough for Atom, then Atom is in need of
a new protocol to transport it, that is not the fault of HTTP.

 Frank
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 15:19:39 GMT

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