- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:18:38 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Seems reasonable. If this is where we're at WRT this draft, it suggests to me it's ready to go... Cheers, On 01/02/2012, at 8:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 02:19:07 UTC