Re: Using unicode or MBCS characters in forms
>However, there is not an explicit acknowledgement that POST and PUT
>allow entity bodies either. I can remember clearly the editorial
>discussion where we (at least in the editorial committee) were clear
>about the consensus that GET should not allow entity bodies and PUT
>and POST should, but I agree that the HTTP/1.1 specification should be
>clearer about this.
The clearest way would be to change the BNF for HEAD and GET. Still, I
do not see the logic in this as it is much the same thing as using GET
with a CGI script as a target. I'll take this to the HTTP 1.1 working
Anyway, my statement, I believe, is correct.
>I know there have been 'proposals', but the contradiction lies in that
>there seems to be no way to have a designator that is both UNIFORM
>(everyone who might use it might also type it in the same way and
>write it the same way) and that is also INTERNATIONAL (those who wish
>to use East Asian, Arabic, or even just western European accented
>characters might be able to use those characters in a designator) by
>the simple observation that UNIFORM basically implies "least common
>denominator", and that while almost all keyboards of the world do have
>a way to enter a limited repertoire of roman characters and a few
>punctuation marks, the least common denominator does not go beyond
There are ways of dealing with this (use UTF-7, or MIME
techniques). In reality, this layer should largely be transparent to
I know this is not a problem which will be solved soon, partly because
a lot of folks, when they get thinking about it, push it off "for
later". That is why I said "further off".
>within the current mechanisms of URLs. It's unfortunate that the
>groups currently working on URNs -- a likely point of attaching such
>internationalization efforts -- have not, to my knowledge, considered
>the internationalization consequences of their work.
Why do I have a sinking feeling of deja'vue