Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74]

Brian Smith wrote:
 
> You cannot derive "token | quoted-string | encoded-word"
> from "token | quoted-string".

There are two RFCs 2047 and 2231 explaining the technical
details.  If my attempt to express the concept with less
words failed please ignore it, stick to RFC 2047 and 2231.

> RFC 2047 only talks about how to use encoded-string in 
> RFC 2045 messages with RFC 822 headers, not RFC 2616
> messages or RFC 2616 headers.

AFAIK an RFC 2616 message is a variant of message/rfc822,
registered as MIME type message/http.  If MIME RFC 2047
etc. is not more good enough for 2616bis this effort is
doomed.  "Find something better than MIME while claiming
that the result is still related to HTTP/1.1" can't fly.

> Finally, none of them reference RFC 2231

Updating and fixing the references, the numerous errata,
and the horrible syntax, is precisely what this WG tries.

> Mark's newest Link header draft

This draft or HTML 5 have nothing to do with the job to
get RFC 2616 into a shape good enough for its DS status.

If referencing RFC 2231 is really unnecessary it's fine,
after all it would be a downref, and RFC 2231 admits to
be "gibbous".

>> RFC 2068 clearly says URI
[...]
> RFC 2068 uses sgml-name, not URI.

| Link = "Link" ":" #("<" URI ">" *( ";" link-param )
..........................^^^

> HTML allows anything that doesn't embed spaces.

| <!ATTLIST LINK
|  %attrs;                     -- %coreattrs, %i18n, %events --
|  charset %Charset; #IMPLIED  -- char encoding of linked resource --
|  href    %URI;     #IMPLIED  -- URI for linked resource --
............^^^

What are you talking about ?  I'm not aware of a DTD
allowing IRI in this place apart from my homebrewn
XHTML 1 i18n <http://purl.net/xyzzy/-xhtml1-i18n.dtd>

 Frank

Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 09:45:59 UTC