Re: Header encoding (per RFC2231), was: Last Call: draft-nottingham-http-link-header (Web Linking) to Proposed Standard


I'm more than happy to respond to a substantive technical issue that  
you bring up, but expressing concern without conveying details isn't  
helping me do that.

Can you be more explicit? What problems do you foresee?


On 30/09/2009, at 9:22 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>>>> Seems reasonable, though I am still skeptical as to the use of
>>>>>>> the title* feature in practice. It seems better to me to just
>>>>>>> have one title attribute, in one language, and to upgrade HTTP
>>>>>>> to support UTF-8 in headers.
>>>>>> That's already been discussed extensively, and that's not the
>>>>>> direction things are going in (certainly for pre-existing
>>>>>> headers like Link).
>>>>> Fair enough. Is there a test suite I can look at or some
>>>>> implementations of this feature so I can see how it works in
>>>>> practice?
>>>> I have tests that check support for RFC2231-style encoding for the
>>>> filename parameter in the Content-Disposition header, see
>>>> <>.
>>>> As far as I can tell, the subset used in Mark's draft is supported
>>>> (and has been for many years) by Firefox and Opera.
>>> It's not the encoding I'm concerned about; it's the UI.
>> What does the UI have to do with the character encoding used in HTTP?
> Nothing. It's the multi-language aspect of the feature I'm concerned
> about.
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                ) 
> \._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _ 
> \  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'-- 
> (,_..'`-.;.'

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 11:21:32 UTC