- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:32:39 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote:
> It seems that certain vendors do not "get" that RFC1806 was updated
> by RFC2183, which in turn was updated by RFC2231 (defining I18N).
> So I think we need to
> 1) s/1806/2183/g (this is editorial, methinks)
+1
> 2) Clarify that I18N is defined in by RFC2231
+2
> 3) Specify a profile of RFC2231 that makes sense for
> Content-Disposition as used over HTTP (as opposed to
> mail), such as:
Generally, not only for Content-Disposition "experiments",
right ?
> 3a) No Continuations
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.3>)
+1 Wow, I only saw "greenbytes" and thought that you are talking
about an editor's copy of one of the 2616bis parts. And was
completely confused why you apparently specify the same idea
as RFC 2231 announced as *no* continuations. Finally I saw
that this just your HTMLified copy of RFC 2231.
> 3b) Support
* <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.4>,
> but only use UTF-8 encoding in producers.
-1 Tiny mazes, all different... :-( The us-ascii example is
perfect, and if 2616bis sticks to its iso-8859-1 "default"
this relic and its more popular windows-1252 incarnation are
also plausible. I can see a "strongly RECOMMENDED", but no
MUST utf-8 here, and "default" iso-8859-1 there, and a big
mess everywhere.
Frank
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 11:31:37 UTC