- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:46:12 +1100
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜)" <jungshik@google.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Because (if I read the original message correctly -- please correct me if I'm wrong) they're sniffing the UA to do it, and if they do that, they'll presumably adapt their sniffing based upon changes in the browser market (as anyone who sniffs and believes that they don't have to monitor the market tends to get bitten, hard). Cheers, On 16/12/2010, at 5:27 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > Why doesn't it affect the spec? It seems like implementations won't > want to remove support for a feature that's used on a site as popular > as Gmail. > > Adam > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Perhaps, but it depends on how Google sniffs the UAs. And I don't think it affects the spec. >> >> >> On 16/12/2010, at 9:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >>> On 15.12.2010 21:19, Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Before rushing to remove it (as an optional 'fallback') , I'd like to >>>> have some 'numbers' about what web servers do (FYI, some Google products >>>> emit RFC 2047 for Firefox and Chrome at the moment, but I guess Google >>>> has to switch over to RFC 5987 for Firefox and Chrome). I'm not sure >>>> whether the cost of supporting it is larger than the benefit. >>>> ... >>> >>> Indeed. GMail seems to use RFC2047-encoding (when saving an attachment with non-ASCII characters in the filename) for Firefox (and likely for Chrome as well). >>> >>> So it's unlikely that UAs can remove this until this get fixed. >>> >>> Best regards, Julian >>> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >> -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 06:46:46 UTC