Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

--------
Julian Reschke writes:

> > I have no idea why they did not use your RFC5987.
>
> "They" in this case is your co-author on sfbis.

Why yes, it is indeed!

But since he has not employed me as his official spokesperson, you
will have to ask directly, why he did not use your RFC.

Feel more than free to not Cc me on that discussion.

> I'd like this WG to consider adding strings with non-ASCII characters as
> first-class data types.

If you think there is WG-appetite for RFC5987bis, then I see no reason you
should not go for it ?

> > And if the RFC7807-crew, of all crews, did not adopt RFC5987, why
> > would should we expect /anybody/ to pick up standard N+1 from sfbis ?
>
> Because it would be an integral part of SF, not something added on top.

... but if you are trying to co-opt sfbis for your pet issue of putting I18N
into HTTP, after you have repeatedly failed in a number of other ways,
including a Standards Track RFC, that even a prominent member of the HTTP WG
ignored, I think you should stop wasting our time.

Time to take a walk, (and I suggest you do too).

Poul-Henning

-- 
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 Friday, 2 December 2022 12:14:43 UTC