- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:57:39 +1100
- To: "Frank Ellermann" <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 25/03/2008, at 10:40 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > > Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> remove the requirement that only RFC2047 encoding be used; >> instead, recommend that context-specific encoding rules be >> used (giving examples), and failing that, the \u'nnnnnn' >> form from BCP137. > > Are you sure that you want more than one way (MIME) for this > magic, I think the argument here is that there's already more than one way; e.g., IRIs serialised as URIs, RFC2231 (for Content-Disposition), 2822 (for From), etc. > and if yes, are you sure that \u'nnnnnn' is the right > way in HTTP? If there is a chance that these values have to > be displayed in HTML pages or used in XML files the NCR form > &#xnnnnnn; might work "as is", for \u'nnnnnn' something needs > to determine a corresponding UTF-16, hex. NCR, or UTF-8. I'm not particularly attached to one form or another, although BCP137 does note the ugliness factor WRT NCRs. Fair point WRT XML/HTML uses, although I wonder at how often that will happen, and it doesn't seem difficult to accommodate... Anybody else have a preference / argument for one or the other? Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 11:58:33 UTC