- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:51:20 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-02-06 05:01, Henrik Nordström wrote: > lör 2012-01-28 klockan 09:13 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > >>> I would apply a lossy conversion (reverse-mapping between UTF-8 and 8859-1). >>> So whatever fits 8859-1 would correctly be mapped, and the rest would be lost >>> or quoted. I don't think it's that big an issue if this is a well-known >> >> There is no quoting we can use, unless we define a new one... > > Or we just accept that HTTP/1.1 implementations do not follow HTTP/1.1 > encoding specifications anyway for non-ascii data and simply say that > when I18N field values need to be gatewayed to HTTP/1.1 then send them > as UTF-8 even if HTTP/1.1 specifications says otherwise, intentionally > overriding HTTP/1.1 specifications. > > Sure it will break some to fix some (and mainly authentication), but > it's not really such a big deal. In the end it's about the same amount > of breakage as today, only different and more consistent. It will break some uses of Content-Disposition. It will not fix authentication. > But it's a bad idea to open for I18N in field names. Sure. Did anybody propose that? Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 07:51:51 UTC