- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:36:08 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 09:41 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > <My inclination is that they're protocol elements, and not user- > visible, therefore the conservative thing to do is just document > current practice -- i.e., encoding isn't supported. I could see an > argument for explicitly saying that RFC2047 does apply there, but > anything beyond that seems a stretch. Both Reason Phrase and Warning-text is indended for the human and not automata, but it's optional to actually display them. The Status-Code is intended for use by automata and the Reason-Phrase is intended for the human user. The client is not required to examine or display the Reason- Phrase. Warnings also carry a warning text. The text MAY be in any appropriate natural language (perhaps based on the client's Accept headers), and include an OPTIONAL indication of what character set is used. Multiple warnings MAY be attached to a response (either by the origin server or by a cache), including multiple warnings with the same code number. For example, a server might provide the same warning with texts in both English and Basque. It escapes me however however how character set indication is supposed to be done in warning texts as it's a quoted-string.. not token| quoted-string. Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 15:37:48 UTC