- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:15:27 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-03-31 16:40, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >> We discussed this document in Dallas: >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-rfc5987bis> >> >> Based on the feedback received, I believe that we should adopt this >> document as a WG product, with a target of Proposed Standard. > > Solving the problem: Yes, good idea. > > "Solving" it this way: Bad idea. It *has* been solved this way. This is not new. > First, we're worried about transmission times for HTTP so making > the charset selection per header-subfield is a horribly inefficient > way to solve the problem. Yes. > Second, do we really want to make it possible to have one subfield > of a header be KOIR8 and the next subfield be codepage 1251 ? The spec clearly says that anything but UTF-8 might not be interoperable. > Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets > than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ? This is a legacy encoding; it goes back to RFC 2231 (and even more). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 08:15:59 UTC