- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:52:33 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
fre 2008-04-04 klockan 08:00 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham: > Jamie -- if we later decided to allow UTF-8, we'd of course have to > figure out how it fit into the overall picture. This sub-issue is just > about whether we should allow C1 in iso-8859-1, as the spec is > currently written. My standpoint is that the aim should be to try to get away from iso-8859-1 and try to get over to UTF-8 where applicable. Any steps taken which restricts general syntax in a way that UTF-8 would not fit is a step backwards on that, and in the wrong direction I think. Any new things added need to fit within the general syntax definition, which today is based on TEXT. We could split that, making TEXT octets based allowing any octets except for CTLs but including LWS (current definition) and another definition for ISO-8859-1 and use this explicitly where we see that staying with ISO-8859-1 is the only and the only possible way for the duration of HTTP/1.x, but I don't see much point in that. Regards Henrik
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2008 22:54:29 UTC