Re: Issue 187 (Warn header (P6) vs RFC2047 encoding)

Absent any pushback on this, closing #187.


On 07/08/2009, at 5:55 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> +1. Talking about languages when the charset is constrained -- as  
>>> well as when it's not intended for end-user interpretation --  
>>> makes no sense.
>>>
>>> I'd be more reticent to take this path, BTW, if there were any  
>>> implementation of Warning in UAs. However, since as far as we know  
>>> there isn't, it seems reasonable.
>>> ...
>> Ack.
>> I have removed more text, proposed patch: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/187/187.2.diff 
>> >. ...
>
> I have applied the proposed patch with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/669 
> >.
>
> BR, Julian


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 01:53:17 UTC