- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:38:36 +0200
- To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Frank Ellermann wrote: > ... >> Well, we need one encoding that can represent all Unicode code >> points, and UTF-8 comes to mind for that. > > Sure, maybe I don't understand what you are proposing. The 2231 > example is: > > | Content-Type: application/x-stuff; > | title*=us-ascii'en-us'This%20is%20%2A%2A%2Afun%2A%2A%2A > > This would also work for utf-8, iso-8859-1, and windows-1252 -- > these charsets use the same encoding for u+0020, u+002A, "This", > and "fun". That's true. But what we need is something that also works for "äöü߀" & friends *reliably*. > I thought that you want to limit the choice to utf-8, which is > kind of odd in an environment with "default" iso-8859-1. Maybe > somebody has implemented RFC 2231 in the last decade for HTTP. > (without those odd continuations relevant for mail, hopefully) FF and Opera support RFC2231, and they do support UTF-8. Reminding UAs to implement RFC2231 without stating that they really need also support the UTF-8 encoding seems like a bad idea. And as there's no way for feature discovery/negotiation, sites really need a universal encoding they can count on. >> Support for RFC2231 in UAs would be totally pointless if we >> couldn't require recipients to understand it. So why produce >> anything else? > > How can an UA not understand iso-8859-1 if it is the "default", > or not support us-ascii as proper subset of utf-8, or not grok > windows-1252, which is what folks anyway do when they allegedly > use iso-8859-1 ? You could say "MUST at least support us-ascii > and utf-8, and using one of these charsets is RECOMMENDED", or > similar. Not sure what mentioning "us-ascii" buys as here, as the UTF-8 encoding is the same anyway. So requiring *both* doesn't give us any additional functionality whatsoever. The second part of the sentence sounds ok, but seems to be really useless. If senders can rely on recipients understanding UTF-8, there is zero reason to ever try something else. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 12:39:20 UTC