- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:06:14 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Putting this text in, I'm inclined to omit the enc2231-string from link-extension, because I think extensions should call it out explicitly, rather than blanket applying it to all extensions. Cheers and many thanks, On 11/12/2008, at 4:13 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> ... >>>> It's good for telling people where to go when they need it. It >>>> may not be sufficient for ensuring that recipients actually >>>> implement it. >>> >>> Yes, I had that feeling too, but failed to find a good way to >>> express requirements. >>> >>>> Also note that RFC 2231 encoding affects the grammar. >>> >>> What's standard practice -- to explicitly call out the * form in >>> the ABNF? >> There is no good standard practice, and this is why >> interoperability sucks for Content-Disposition. >> The precise way to do it to make it explicit in the ABNF. Such as: >> ( "title" "=" quoted-string ) | ( "title*" "=" enc2231-string ) >> where >> enc2231-string = <extended-value, see RFC 2231, Section 7> > > Actually, we probably should state that for all extension parameters: > > enc2231-string = <extended-initial-value, see RFC 2231, Section 7> > > link-param = ( "rel" "=" relation-type ) > | ( "rev" "=" relation-type ) > | ( "type" "=" type-name ) > | ( "title" "=" quoted-string ) | > ( "title*" "=" enc2231-string > | ( link-extension ) > > link-extension = ( token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ] > | token "*" [ "=" enc2231-string ] > > ...and then state in prose what to do when both token= and token*= > are used (either disallow it, or make "*=" override "=" so that the > simple notation can be used as a fallback for recipients that do not > understand RFC 2231). > >>>> That being said, I already volunteered to profile and clarify RFC >>>> 2231 for use in HTTP, but I'm not there yet (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-latest.html >>>> >). >>>> >>>> If we can reach agreement that it's sufficient to support only >>>> some parts of RFC 2231 (no continuations, no charsets other than >>>> ISO8859-1 and UTF-8), I can try to condense that statement into a >>>> very short paragraph. >>> >>> >>> Please do. >> Will do. > > "When using the enc2231-string syntax, producers MUST NOT use a > charset value other than 'ISO-8859-1' or 'UTF-8'. Therefore, these > two character sets are the only values a recipient needs to > implement." > > We may also want to add an example, such as > > title*=UTF-8''a%20Umlaut%20%c3%a4 > > for a title of "a umlaut ä". > > BR, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 30 January 2009 09:06:55 UTC