- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:32:10 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Comments?
You'd bet.
>> New:
>> """
>> Words of *TEXT MUST NOT contain characters from character sets
>> other than ISO-8859-1 [ISO-8859-1].
>> TEXT = %x20-7E | %x80-FF | LWS
>> ; any OCTET except CTLs, but including LWS
(1) If you say MUST NOT it implies "I mean it". And if that is
the intention permitting %x80-9F is excessively dubious.
Therefore you don't mean it, any you can write:
++ Words of *TEXT contain characters from the ISO-8859-1 charset.
No MUSTard, a loophole for "you can try UTF-8, and if it breaks
you own the pieces".
(2) LWS. This horror will be limited to "FWS minus obs-FWS" in
ABNF later, is that correct ? No "apparently empty" lines
only containing "significant" trailing white space, please.
>> Characters outside of ISO8859-1 MAY be included where the
>> encoded-word rule (as defined in RFC2047, Section 2) is
>> specified.
(3) How about RFC 2231, section 5 ? It is fine if you say *NO*
for various reasons (RFC 2231 would be a downref, and nobody
needs language tags in <encoded-word> for HTTP), but I'd
like to have that decision on record, just in case.
>> When used in HTTP, encoded-word has no specified length limit.
IMO you could add "and SHOULD NOT be folded". What do the HTTP
implementation and interop reports say about 65 KB encoded-word,
1 MB, 1 GB, 1 TB ? Does HTTP offer any header limits at all ?
>> """
>> field-content = <field content>
>> ; the OCTETs making up the field-value,
>> ; according to the syntax specified by the field.
...sneaky :-)
[no encoded word]
>> 3.3 (Media Types -- parameter values)
That okay ? I can't tell intuitively.
Frank
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 03:30:07 UTC