Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123)

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote:
>> I don't see the point of requiring ISO-8859-1.
> See above, so far all proposals to ditch Latin-1 didn't
> make it.  As long as that doesn't change Latin-1 is the
> only permitted form of any non-ASCII octets in HTTP/1.1
> headers.

I'm becoming very confused.  RFC 2616 is very explicit;

    The TEXT rule is only used for descriptive field contents and values
    that are not intended to be interpreted by the message parser. Words
    of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
    8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047

        TEXT           = <any OCTET except CTLs,
                         but including LWS>

So, we have a clear definition of where and when and how non-8859-1
characters are permitted, in spite of your's and Julian's claims in his
recent draft.  I really wish people would be more accurate in their

Received on Saturday, 16 August 2008 07:51:33 UTC