- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:55:03 +1000
- To: Noah Slater <nslater@tumbolia.org>
- Cc: ietf@ietf.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Julian F. F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On 24/07/2009, at 12:47 PM, Noah Slater wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:19:08AM +1000, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> The *title parameter already allows for a language to be associated >> with >> the title. See RFC2231 and the examples in the link draft. > > Of course, I should have spotted this. > > I have two questions: > > * Would it be harmful to mirror HTML and specify a redundant lang > parameter > anyway, even though this can also be functionally acheived using > RFC 2231 > syntax. It may be easier for some people to understand this. My understanding of HTML4 is that @lang identifies the language of the link text itself, not the title (although that may be a side effect), since it already has @hreflang. Do I have that wrong? > * Is there a default encoding for parameter values, or in fact any > other part > of this header. I could not find anything in the draft which > would indicate > there is a default. Could this cause problems? If they're a token (i.e., unquoted), they're restricted to ASCII in the BNF ( token = *CHAR = octets 0-127). If it's a quoted-string, it's restricted to ISO-8859-1 unless encoded as per 2047 (like title*) (see RFC2616 section 2.2). However, HTTPbis looks like it will be further restricting this to ASCII (with defined encodings into ASCII as needed). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 02:55:47 UTC