- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:28:09 +0100
- To: Alexei Khlebnikov <alexei.khlebnikov@opera.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-30 13:20, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote: > Hi, > > My feedback on > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.html#encoding>: > > > Was it considered to name the new parameter "charset" instead of > "encoding"? No, I didn't think of that. > I can see the following advantages of "charset": > > 1) "Charset" is unambigous. "Encoding" is ambigous, it can refer to many > things: base64, quoted-printable, chunked-coding, gzip-compression, etc. Well, as Björn says, charset is is ambiguous as well; the correct term here would be "character encoding scheme", but there's also the aspect of brevity. > 2) "Charset" is already used in the HTTP protocol, so it is good to use > the same word for consistency: > > Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 I'd agree if this was exactly the same use case... That being said, I'm happy to do what the majority thinks is best. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 13:28:54 UTC