On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:13 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > Hi there, > > ..trying to do some cherry-picking...: > > > On 13.12.2010 10:06, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> ... >> >> I agree that RFC2047 style encoding shouldn't be supported, and I'm >>> >> IMHO, we have to base our decision on this issue with what web servers actually emit these days. I meant to collect the stat on C-D header fields a long time ago, but haven't managed to do that. > ambivalent about RFC5987. RFC2231/5987 is a step in the wrong >>> direction (opaque encoding for something that doesn't need it), but >>> given that IETF won't cease pushing it, we might as well implement it >>> and be more compatible with Firefox, if not the Web. >>> >>> That's why I had resisted RFC 5987 for rather long while, but 'Chrome' 'gave in' and implemented it. :-) > > ... > > RFC 2047 encoding is currently only done in Firefox (for which I raised a > bug report a few months ago) and Chrome. For the latter I just raised < > http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=66694>; maybe we can > make some progress on getting rid of this. > Before rushing to remove it (as an optional 'fallback') , I'd like to have some 'numbers' about what web servers do (FYI, some Google products emit RFC 2047 for Firefox and Chrome at the moment, but I guess Google has to switch over to RFC 5987 for Firefox and Chrome). I'm not sure whether the cost of supporting it is larger than the benefit. Jungshik
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 20:20:06 UTC