Re: #243: iso-8859-1 in C-D

* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>According to <>:
>>    Historically, HTTP has allowed field content with text in the ISO-
>>    8859-1 [ISO-8859-1] character encoding and supported other character
>>    sets only through use of [RFC2047] encoding.  In practice, most HTTP
>>    header field values use only a subset of the US-ASCII character
>>    encoding [USASCII].  Newly defined header fields SHOULD limit their
>>    field values to US-ASCII characters.  Recipients SHOULD treat other
>>    (obs-text) octets in field content as opaque data.
>I don't see what not specifying the character set that doesn't require encoding buys us here. 

I think this issue can be closed; I think the document has been changed
to my satisfaction. (I do note that there is some slight inaccuracy in
the text you cite and the Content-Disposition draft: if the filename
value is a `token` instead of a quoted string, RFC 2616 does not define
the encoding of the token to be ISO-8859-1; the ISO-8859-1 language is
for words of TEXT, which are in comments in quoted strings only.)
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · 

Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 01:54:04 UTC