- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:47:01 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-10 10:28, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <511726A5.5030302@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D= > FCrst=22?= writes: > >> While we are on a sideline, I'd hope you could have a close look at the >> above line. I'm not sure what kind of mail user agent you're using, > > I'm using a pretty antique "nmh", and some decade I'll upgrade to > something which might or might not work better. > >> Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, this is not about me and >> my name, but about about basic understanding for people who can't get by >> with just ASCII. > > I'm Danish, I know full well that ASCII isn't enough for people. > > But protocols are not people, and while the are used to move the > communications of people, and therefore should be able to _move_ > unicode, there is seldom, if ever, need nor advantage to pollute > the mechanics of the protocol with unicode. > > This is why I keep asking people where _exactly_ it is they want > the unicode to go in the HTTP/2 protocol. So far I fail to detect > a clear answer... 1) Filenames in Content-Disposition 2) non-ASCII characters in HTTP auth credentials 3) title parameters in Link header fields Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 09:47:36 UTC