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

Re: i74 proposal take 2

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:47:13 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <66AA98A5-43B5-4BB5-891A-FE93B9171504@mnot.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On 29/03/2008, at 6:17 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>
>> * p1, 2.2:
>> Old:
>>> comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
>> New:
>> """
>> comment = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment | encoded-word ) ")"
>> """
>
> OK, but then we'll have to state somewhere where encoded-word comes  
> from; <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047#section-2>?
>
> Also, do we really Really REALLY want to require to support all  
> what's in there?

Any specific thoughts? It's already been suggested that the charsets  
available be limited... anything else?


>> * p3, B.1:
>> Old:
>>> filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string
>> New:
>> """
>> filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string | encoded-word
>> """
>
> I'd prefer to make C-D a special case where we specify *exactly*  
> what's needed, nothing more (which means: RFC2231 encoding of utf-8,  
> no line folding/contiuation lines).

Why not make that the case for all uses of encoded-word? The most  
effective way to clarify this might be to mint a new rule which  
defines itself by refining the definition of encoded-word, with the  
appropriate references and caveats.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 01:47:55 GMT

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