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

Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:36:42 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <72026AA5-7A88-4EA2-8833-8FC797F4E2B2@mnot.net>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

What would it prove if we found no-one? That they aren't useful  
encodings, or that there aren't use cases for non-ASCII characters in  
headers?

Cheers,


On 15/03/2008, at 10:26 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:

> At 19:26 08/03/14, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> Personally, I am *very* -1 on doing this.
>>> Changing the allowable characters in a protocol element is a *big*  
>>> change, and there is not an interoperability gain to doing so.
>>> There is also not a functionality gain; it is possible (if not  
>>> pretty) to serialise other characters into HTTP headers.
>>
>> I think the key question here: is that implemented in practice? (In  
>> particular, which encoding?) If yes, fine (and maybe let's document  
>> what works). But if not...?
>
> Exactly. I'm still waiting for somebody to point to a server that
> actually serves iso-8859-1 data, or even more, RFC 2045-encoded
> data.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 04:37:25 GMT

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