Re: #227: Encoding advice for new headers and parameters

On 2016/10/04 10:59, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> <chair hat> it sounds like we can close this issue with no action -- anyone else have thoughts?

Well, this is in no way a new thought, but it is worth repeating: What 
about just using UTF-8, plain and simple.

This solution was available almost 20 years ago (see RFC 2277). There 
were certain backwards-compatibility issues, the worst of which 
according to my knowledge would have been that UTF-8 would have shown up 
as double-encoded garbage when interpreted as iso-8859-1 (as defined in 
HTTP at that time).

What I find extremely disappointing is that despite this group being 
composed of a lot of very intelligent people, it was impossible to move 
towards such a simple solution even at a slow pace. The good thing is 
that it's never too late. But that doesn't mean that we have to push 
this solution out another 20 or 50 years.

Regards,   Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 03:29:29 UTC