- 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>
-------- 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. 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