- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:09:16 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-03-31 22:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <20150331182521.GF7183@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > >>> Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets >>> than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ? >> >> Idem. And if we don't need to do more than that, then probably we >> just need a boolean to say "this is not ISO-8859-1, hence this is >> UTF-8" and make the encoding implicit by the sole presence of the >> encoding tag (eg: the "*" or "=", I don't remember right now). > > In that case I could live with it being per field, because the > signal could be a single character and we could probably > dispense with the % encoding too. Friends, this is not a new format. It is implemented in all major user agents, so it really doesn't make sense to invent a new shorter syntax approximately 15 years after this has been defined first. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 08:10:11 UTC