Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:40:22PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2015-04-01 21:12, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Hi Julian,
> >
> >On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:09:16AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >>On 2015-03-31 22:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >>>--------
> >>>In message <>, 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.
> >
> >Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of it at all. So just for our
> >understanding, could you explain in a few words what in your proposal
> >differs from what already exists, or whether it standardizes something
> >already used as a de-facto standard maybe ?
> The major differences would be:
> - remove ISO-8859-1 from the set of required encodings, and
> - better integration with the httpbis specs.

OK thank you very much for the quick diff, that's clear to me now.
Then I don't see anything to argue against from my point of view.

Best regards,

Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 19:53:07 UTC