On 2012-02-06 05:01, Henrik Nordström wrote: > lör 2012-01-28 klockan 09:13 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > >>> I would apply a lossy conversion (reverse-mapping between UTF-8 and 8859-1). >>> So whatever fits 8859-1 would correctly be mapped, and the rest would be lost >>> or quoted. I don't think it's that big an issue if this is a well-known >> >> There is no quoting we can use, unless we define a new one... > > Or we just accept that HTTP/1.1 implementations do not follow HTTP/1.1 > encoding specifications anyway for non-ascii data and simply say that > when I18N field values need to be gatewayed to HTTP/1.1 then send them > as UTF-8 even if HTTP/1.1 specifications says otherwise, intentionally > overriding HTTP/1.1 specifications. > > Sure it will break some to fix some (and mainly authentication), but > it's not really such a big deal. In the end it's about the same amount > of breakage as today, only different and more consistent. It will break some uses of Content-Disposition. It will not fix authentication. > But it's a bad idea to open for I18N in field names. Sure. Did anybody propose that? Best regards, JulianReceived on Monday, 6 February 2012 07:51:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:54 GMT