[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Using unicode or MBCS characters in forms



>> BTW. I would also like servers to respect GET requests with bodies,
>> but that it even further off. Further off still is internationalised
>> URL's.
>
>Gavin, this is inconsistent with "compliant with all WWW standards",
>as GET does not have a body, does not allow a body. If you want to
>propose that HTTP be changed to allow a body inside GET, you should
>make this proposal in the HTTP working group. But on the one hand to
>encourage people to implement the standards and then to go off with
>some non-standard extension that YOU like but isn't part of the
>standard-- well, it's irresponsible. Please stop.

Which version of HTTP Larry? I have never seen a version of the HTTP
specification specifically disallow bodies on GET requests in either
the BNF *or* the prose. As such, bodies on a GET request do conform to
the standard, but not to common usage. Unless you can point to a
specific section that specifically disallows this, I think you owe me
an apology.

>Similarly, with "internationalised URL's", if you have a workable
>concrete proposal to bring forward and suggest as we progress the URL
>specifications through standards track, that might be useful, but as
>it is, people continue to bring up the "problem", which I understand
>and sympathize with, but without ever actually making a specific
>proposal that might resemble a _UNIFORM_ resource locator (same
>locator used by everyone) that is also International. So, this is not
>"further off", this is in some alternate universe.

Myself and others *have* made proposals. I also find quite distasteful
your use of "alternate universe". I believe that concerted effort can
also solve this problem, but so far, no effort has resulted in
consensus. 

If you think that I'm so irresponsible, or off in some alternate
universe, then why is it that I have been involved in, and often, one
of the creators/designers of solutions used to bring I18N to the WWW?



Follow-Ups: References: