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

On 07.11.2010 02:53, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * 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.)

True, but token doesn't allow anything outside USASCII anyway, right?

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 08:33:52 UTC