- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 22:47:56 +0100
- To: "Manger, James H" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
- CC: httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-11-02 03:33, Manger, James H wrote: > ... > Presumably RFC5987 (or its predecessors) decided it was highly unlikely > that any parameter names in use ended in "*" (though they are valid) > so it could redefine the syntax of values for such names. > ... That's not entirely correct. RFC 5987 does not mandate that every parameter ending in "*" needs to use the 2231 encoding; actually it does clearly say that it's an opt-in; see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc5987.html#rfc.section.4>. That being said, there are parsers out there that just assume that a trailing "*" indicates 2231/5987 encoding (for instance, Mozilla). So it probably would be a good idea to point out that a trailing "*" in a parameter name that does *not* indicate 2231/5987 encoding is a very bad idea, maybe when we get to issue #266. Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2011 21:49:07 UTC