W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc5987bis, was: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:00:37 +0200
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <560D2065.5060803@greenbytes.de>
On 2015-10-01 08:33, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <D107F92F-F930-44AE-945A-9170389DFCC4@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
> tes:
>> We're belatedly adopting this; Julian asked for a breather while he
>> finished other work, and now he's ready to commence.
> I think adopting the draft is a good idea.
> But I find some bits of the low level mechanics proposed troublesome.
> For instance it worries me a lot to use '*' as magic marker in
> fields which are historically thrown around fast and loose in all
> sorts of programming environments where it may or may not be a
> meta-character.
> Can we find a less overloaded preferably non-meta character ?

We could. But then we'd define something new, instead of just updating a 
specification of something that has been used for something like 15 
years already.

> ...
> But going even further:  I have a hard time coming up with a credible
> (ie: non-demented) scenario for having multiple different charsets
> in the same header.
> ...

I have a feeling of deja vu. We discussed this already.

Again: this is not new.

We can and should new ways to address this (and the JSON-in-field-values 
spec is one proposal). But this is not the spec to do this.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 12:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:39 UTC