- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:51:19 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Robert Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
lör 2008-03-29 klockan 13:04 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > Also, this issue affects another issue I'd like to really make progress > on (the BNF->ABNF switch). Is there a chance that we can decide on which > headers currently *do* allow RFC2047 notation? Difficult. No known implementations, and specifications ambigious on when 2047 should be used, such as Warning saying 2047 should be used but defining a syntax where 2047 says itself that it MUST NOT be used... > Two more thoughts: > > 1) Do we have *any* evidence of HTTP servers actually using RFC2047 > encoding, or clients being able to decipher it? I am not aware of any, but then I mostly operate in a context where ISO-8859-1 makes sense... But at least IE6 has optional support for sending URLs using raw UTF-8, and it do send raw UTF-8 in the Host header in such setups.. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 17:52:26 UTC