- 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>
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