- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:29:47 +0100
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Brian Smith wrote: > ... > It is not clear whether or not the RFC 2047 mechanism can be used in > quoted-string, because quoted-string is not defined in terms of "*TEXT", > but rather a similar construct. Given all the places that quoted-string ??? <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#basic.rules.quoted-string>: quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> ) qdtext = <any TEXT except <">> > is used, should the RFC 2047 mechanism really be allowed in all these > places?: > > Accept > Cache-Control > Content-Encoding > Content-Type > ETag > Expect > If-Match > If-None-Match > If-Range > Pragma > TE > Transfer-Encoding > Warning I think this is the intent. > Also, the Reason-phrase of the status line is defined as: > > *<TEXT, excluding CR, LF> > > But, is the RFC 2047 mechanism allowed in the Reason-phrase? I would think so. > ... > Are there any headers fields that have *TEXT in their grammar? > > If the specification is read strictly, then the RFC 2047 mechanism has > never been allowed everywhere. And, if it is read liberally, then it is I disagree. > allowed in way too many places. And, if it is allowed anywhere, there > should be some advice as to what encodings should be supported. From the headers above, where do you think it shouldn't be allowed? I do agree that if we rely on RFC2047, we may also have to spend some time improving that document. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 09:37:15 UTC