- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 01:59:26 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
fre 2008-04-04 klockan 16:55 +1100 skrev Mark Nottingham: > At any rate, the interesting thing to me here is that the argument for > allowing quoted charset content-type parameters seems to be that the > BNF for params is > token | quoted-string > i.e., all parameters inherit the ability to be quoted from the generic > BNF. Yes. Simplifiers parsers consiredably if they don't need to know the parameter token to tell if it's value is allowed to be quoted or not. > However, as part of the discussion of our favourite issue, #74, we've > come to the place where saying that field-content is *not* subject to > RFC2047 encoding generically, even though its BNF refers to TEXT > (albeit in comments). Not entirely sure what you refer to. RFC2047 is very strict on when it may be applied. The 2616 BNF very often uses constructs where 2047 can not be applied, either from the BNF only allowing ASCII (not TEXT) or from being outside the scope where RFC2047 may be applied. > As far as accept-charset goes, I'm fine with leaving it just a token, > and don't think we need any change there. +1 Regards Henrik
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 00:01:26 UTC