- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:30:56 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I take that back... from re-reading, it seemed like people were happy with just *( VCHAR / WSP ), so I left Reason-Phrase out. If I misread this, please respond to my 111 proposal. On 04/04/2008, at 12:06 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 01:31:31 UTC