- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:00:11 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 02.11.2010 08:27, Adam Barth wrote: > ... > I'm suggesting we should use a syntax that doesn't have a slot for > language. For example, simply %-encoded UTF8 would seem to address > the real use case here. If 5987 is squatting on filename*, then we > can call it awesome-filename or whatever. > ... The language already is optional. It's harmless. There's no problem here. On the other hand, inventing a new encoding for each new parameter makes code-reuse harder. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 09:00:49 UTC