W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Call for Adoption: draft-reschke-rfc54987bis

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:40:36 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <39087.1427812836@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <1C7436D4-D1EF-454C-BC14-E8C00165AA2E@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri

>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.

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.

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 ?

Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets
than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ?

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 14:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC