- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:36:42 +1100
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
What would it prove if we found no-one? That they aren't useful encodings, or that there aren't use cases for non-ASCII characters in headers? Cheers, On 15/03/2008, at 10:26 AM, Martin Duerst wrote: > At 19:26 08/03/14, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Personally, I am *very* -1 on doing this. >>> Changing the allowable characters in a protocol element is a *big* >>> change, and there is not an interoperability gain to doing so. >>> There is also not a functionality gain; it is possible (if not >>> pretty) to serialise other characters into HTTP headers. >> >> I think the key question here: is that implemented in practice? (In >> particular, which encoding?) If yes, fine (and maybe let's document >> what works). But if not...? > > Exactly. I'm still waiting for somebody to point to a server that > actually serves iso-8859-1 data, or even more, RFC 2045-encoded > data. > > Regards, Martin. > > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 04:37:25 UTC