Re: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers

Warnings are definitely an issue, although I'm not aware of any UA  
that displays them.... anybody? Does Amaya?

WRT reason phrases -- although that's what the spec says, I think that  
'human user' is a stretch -- it's really for debugging / logging /  
development in common use. Whether elements with that use case should  
be able to be internationalised is a separate discussion, of course.


On 19/03/2008, at 2:36 AM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2008 01:02:18 UTC