- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:22:37 +0900
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
At 13:36 08/03/17, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >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? Good question. Maybe that the use cases for non-ASCII characters aren't strong enough to justify the uglyness of the encoding? Regards, Martin. >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/ > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 06:06:59 UTC