W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:55:03 +1000
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <2E56C76E-ACA5-4CBA-A920-9486C431EFB1@mnot.net>
To: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>

On 24/07/2009, at 12:47 PM, Noah Slater wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:19:08AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> The *title parameter already allows for a language to be associated  
>> with
>> the title. See RFC2231 and the examples in the link draft.
> Of course, I should have spotted this.
> I have two questions:
>  * Would it be harmful to mirror HTML and specify a redundant lang  
> parameter
>    anyway, even though this can also be functionally acheived using  
> RFC 2231
>    syntax. It may be easier for some people to understand this.

My understanding of HTML4 is that @lang identifies the language of the  
link text itself, not the title (although that may be a side effect),  
since it already has @hreflang. Do I have that wrong?

>  * Is there a default encoding for parameter values, or in fact any  
> other part
>    of this header. I could not find anything in the draft which  
> would indicate
>    there is a default. Could this cause problems?

If they're a token (i.e., unquoted), they're restricted to ASCII in  
the BNF ( token = *CHAR = octets 0-127).

If it's a quoted-string, it's restricted to ISO-8859-1 unless encoded  
as per 2047 (like title*) (see RFC2616 section 2.2). However, HTTPbis  
looks like it will be further restricting this to ASCII (with defined  
encodings into ASCII as needed).


Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 02:55:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:50 UTC