- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:06:44 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
The relevance of i74 (at least before that issue got split; the
relevant issue is now 111) is that it allows RFC2047 encoding
explicitly.
It'll still match the BNF, of course...
I'm writing a proposal for 111 now; I'll write it in terms of modifying
Reason-Phrase = *( VCHAR / WSP )
so that you can proceed with this independently.
Cheers,
On 04/04/2008, at 5:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> ...
>>> There's an overlap with issue 74
>> I don't understand section 5 in RFC 3987. Are HTTP
>> implementors forced to grok IRI comparison ? What
>> has this to do with I18N for <Reason-Phrase> ? For
>
> That's what I'm asking you :-)
>
>> a say 404 the body can use any language and charset
>> it likes.
>
> But the Reason-Phrase is not part of the body.
>
>> ...
>> Sanity check, we don't want folding there, right ?
>
> I don't think so. That's what i94 is about.
>
> > ...
>
> BR, Julian
>
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 01:20:03 UTC