- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:18:43 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-01-31 08:34, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > ... >>> to the name, `useUTF8` or `use-utf-8="yes" or some such would have been >>> clearer). >> >> That's another good suggestion; we're not going to allow any other >> encoding, so maybe making it a real flag is the best solution. What do >> others think? > > I'm all in favor. > ... (tracked at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-issues.html#issue.paramname>) So WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="foo", useUTF8 looks cute, but then there's auth-param = token BWS "=" BWS ( token / quoted-string ) (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p7-auth-18.html#rfc.section.2.1>) So it needs a value. We could say useUTF8="yes" but then there's always the problem of remembering whether the syntax is "0"/"1", "false"/"true" or "no"/"yes". We also could say that the presence of the parameter is sufficient, such as with useUTF8="" but then people will be confused when useUTF8="false" does the same thing as for "true". So overall, I think it's better to stick to encoding="value" and hard-wire the value to "UTF-8". (I'm open to renaming the parameter to "enc" or "charset") Feedback on both points appreciated; in doubt, I'll leave things as they are now. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 21:19:19 UTC