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

Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:57:39 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <8A1655B5-E15E-4917-8A74-A716D2FDBBDE@mnot.net>
To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>

On 25/03/2008, at 10:40 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> remove the requirement that only RFC2047 encoding be used;
>> instead, recommend that context-specific encoding rules be
>> used (giving examples), and failing that, the \u'nnnnnn'
>> form from BCP137.
> Are you sure that you want more than one way (MIME) for this
> magic,

I think the argument here is that there's already more than one way;  
e.g., IRIs serialised as URIs, RFC2231 (for Content-Disposition), 2822  
(for From), etc.

> and if yes, are you sure that \u'nnnnnn' is the right
> way in HTTP?  If there is a chance that these values have to
> be displayed in HTML pages or used in XML files the NCR form
> &#xnnnnnn; might work "as is", for \u'nnnnnn' something needs
> to determine a corresponding UTF-16, hex. NCR, or UTF-8.

I'm not particularly attached to one form or another, although BCP137  
does note the ugliness factor WRT NCRs.

Fair point WRT XML/HTML uses, although I wonder at how often that will  
happen, and it doesn't seem difficult to accommodate...

Anybody else have a preference / argument for one or the other?


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 11:58:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC