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

RE: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:45:33 -0500
To: "'Frank Ellermann'" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <42AF537054EA4169B4CC416F8C7A75EF@T60>

[ I sent this just to you because I think the important point was already
clarified on the list by Julian.]

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
> > URI references are already ASCII-encoded IRIs
> 
> That would be a downref in 2616bis, because 3987 and IDNA are 
> only at PS at the moment.  I think it's best to say that URI 
> references are what is specified in STD 68.  Not some
> HTML5 disease, XML LEIRI, ooXML gobbledegook, or what else.

I meant simply that RFC2231 encoding isn't needed or desirable for putting
IRIs in headers, because the standard way of processing them is to encode
them as URIs.

> > For example, RFC 2231 only allows a language tag for the entire 
> > parameter value, but doesn't provide a means of handling 
> > mixed-language text.
> 
> AFAIK this is not the case in RFC 2231, each piece can have 
> its own charset and language, please check.  But admittedly 
> Julian's draft permits only one piece.

No, it is a limit explicitly stated in RFC 2231 in section 4.1: "Language
and character set information only appear at the beginning of a given
parameter value. Continuations do not provide a facility for using more than
one character set or language in the same parameter value."

- Brian
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 04:46:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT