W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: draft-montenegro-httpbis-uri-encoding

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:43:53 +1300
Message-ID: <532BD199.3080705@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 21/03/2014 5:36 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> One of the things we didn't get time to talk about in London was Gabriel's spec:
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-montenegro-httpbis-uri-encoding-00
> In a nutshell, this offers a way for a client to declare what character encoding was used prior to percent-encoding. 
> I've heard hallway feedback about it that wonders if we just want to allow one value ("UTF-8"). Beyond that, folks seem generally neutral-to-positive about it, AFAICT.
> What do people think about adopting this as a WG item, keeping in mind that we can change it in process if there's some particular aspect you don't like?

Sounds good.

Regarding the draft contents:

 Is there any recommendation on what non-UA participants in the
transaction should do when receiving non-UTF-8 values for these headers?
(ie map the charset if they can? ignore it?)

 What should servers (and intermediaries) receiving non-UTF-8 values in
these headers do when they rely on receiving UTF-8 URLs?

 Also, Section 2 references RFC 2616 for charset definition. Which
declares it to be token with values defined in RFC1700. Which in turn
lists US-ASCII and various ISO-* as values. Nowhere in that definition
outside this draft is UTF-8 or alternative values mentioned.
 It would seem the better reference would be RFC2978 which defines ABNF
and values for constructino of tokens from the IANA mime-charset registry.

Received on Friday, 21 March 2014 05:44:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC