The issue I ran into is that 'charset' was defined by both RFC 5987 and RFC 7231. RFC 5988 defines Link using ext-value RFC 6266 defines Content-Disposition using ext-value RFC 5987 defines ext-value as `charset "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars` and charset in terms of mime-charset from Section 2.3 of RFC 2978 RFC 7231 defines charset as a case insensitive token, it is only used for Accept-Charset. Though it does mention that charset may be used in other places (such as in media type parameters) I guess there is no true conflict here; but it might be nice to address in a future update. On 10 May 2016 at 18:27, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote: > On 2016-05-10 10:05, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> HOLD FOR UPDATE. >> >> This is not an errata; it is a suggestion for a technical change in the >> document, and needs to be discussed by the working group. >> >> If you'd like to make suggestions, the best place to do so is the issues >> list for this document set: >> https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis/issues >> >> Regards, >> > > +1 > > Furthermore, I disagree with that change. The purpose of the ABNF > production *in the HTTP spec* is to define how field values are parsed, not > how potentially invalid charset names are to be detected. > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 04:29:55 UTC