- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:47:13 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 UTC