- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:09:10 +0100
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Am 28.03.2008 um 15:17 schrieb Jamie Lokier: > Stefan Eissing wrote: >> You are correct that the information would still be there. And it is >> tempting to shoot for UTF-8. > ... >> And everyone will keep their fingers crossed >> that they do not encounter an intermediary that makes some "security >> filtering" on HTTP headers and screws it up. > > I'm thinking the same applies to RFC2047, if that becomes actually > implemented in practice (it currently isn't). > > Surely the security issues with RFC2047 decoding among different > implementations are _much_ more likely than those of binary UTF-8? I totally agree with you here. We just seem to differ on the question if it is worthwhile to introduce UTF-8 headers or go back to ASCII and go the AtomPub "Slug" header way. //Stefan -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 15:09:56 UTC