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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:04:53 +0100
Message-ID: <47EE3065.5000309@gmx.de>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
CC: Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Stefan Eissing wrote:
> Am 29.03.2008 um 07:46 schrieb Robert Sayre:
>> On Mar 29, 2008, at 12:54 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd rather defer this issue until much later in the process,
>>> namely after the generic message parsing algorithm has been
>>> written properly so that it will be clear that no compliant
>>> implementation needs to care about the field-content in general
>>> beyond it being defined (and parsed) in terms of ASCII delimiters.
>>
>> I think deferral is the right way to proceed.
> 
> +1

I do agree that if we can't make progress, we should defer. That being 
said, I think the discussion so far was very useful, if only in helping 
to understand the problem.

Also, this issue affects another issue I'd like to really make progress 
on (the BNF->ABNF switch). Is there a chance that we can decide on which 
headers currently *do* allow RFC2047 notation?

Two more thoughts:

1) Do we have *any* evidence of HTTP servers actually using RFC2047 
encoding, or clients being able to decipher it?

2) I'll also have to point out that given the state of things with HTTP 
header I18N we observe, the WebDAV WG's decision to put metadata into 
XML was absolutely a good one.

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 12:05:47 GMT

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