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

Re: Header encoding (per RFC2231), was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:11:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC33CCD.1080701@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> Seems reasonable, though I am still skeptical as to the use of the
>>>>> title* feature in practice. It seems better to me to just have one title
>>>>> attribute, in one language, and to upgrade HTTP to support UTF-8 in
>>>>> headers.
>>>> That's already been discussed extensively, and that's not the direction
>>>> things are going in (certainly for pre-existing headers like Link).
>>> Fair enough. Is there a test suite I can look at or some implementations of
>>> this feature so I can see how it works in practice?
>> I have tests that check support for RFC2231-style encoding for the filename
>> parameter in the Content-Disposition header, see
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/>.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the subset used in Mark's draft is supported (and has
>> been for many years) by Firefox and Opera.
> 
> It's not the encoding I'm concerned about; it's the UI.

What does the UI have to do with the character encoding used in HTTP?

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 11:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT