- From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:38:46 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Feb 2011, at 10:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 24.02.2011 08:54, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 24.02.2011 06:39, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> I wouldn't say we break FireFox by recommending this ("breaking" means
>>> that C-D doesn't work at all, or produces garbage), and I wouldn't say
>>> they've been doing the right thing (because they implemented to prefer
>>> the non-internationalised filename).
>>
>> When I said "break" I mean that sending a I18Nized filename will not
>> have the desired effect.
>> ...
>
> Looking at <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588781#c21>, the fix will go into Firefox 5, which is planned to be 3 months behind Firefox 4.
>
> Optimally, this would be ~July 2011.
>
> On the other hand, to get to RFC we need
>
> - to do the IETF LC -> two weeks
> - get it through the IESG (I expect at least minimally one revision to be requested) -> ~ two months
>
> Once it's in the RFC publication queue, it'll take at least another six weeks... Which would be around the same time.
>
> Still, I'm very uncomfortable recommending something we're not sure will work when the RFC is published.
>
One alternative, if the WG/ADs are happy with the approach maybe to be proceed based on the current firefox implementation and if firefox change their code in time get some consensus on text from the WG that can be inserted as part of AUTH48?
Ben
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 12:39:16 UTC