- From: Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:34:45 +1100
- To: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@commscope.com>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> But Mark said it best. The encoding in 5987 is sufficient. > I tend to think that it loses a lot in the human-readable area, > which is still important to me, but it is hard to justify > adding another mechanism where an adequate one already exists. If the RFC5987 encoding is sufficient, then httpbis should recommend RFC5987 syntax instead of token and quoted-string (for new headers and auth scheme parameters). It is having to add RFC5987 as an additional syntax just to get Unicode support that is most objectionable. Mark said: >> New headers (or new parameters to existing ones) don't have to >> support two parameter names -- if they want to specify that only >> foo* be present, so be it, AIUI. That puts it to one syntax and >> one escaping mechanism. That might work. I doubt groups defining new parameters will be that happy that some names have to end with a * (and values start with UTF-8''), particularly when Unicode support is nice but not crucial (at least initially). It would be better if Unicode wasn't a 2nd-class citizen. That is, it would be better if the recommended way to include a string parameter value automatically supported Unicode. -- James Manger
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 06:35:48 UTC