W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:50:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4D693D5D.4030005@gmx.de>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 21.02.2011 04:50, Paul Cotton wrote:
> ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes - Straw Poll for Objections
> The poll is available here and it will run through Monday Feb 28th:
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-125-objection-poll/
> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only
> need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly
> strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked
> objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's
> objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and
> will not be counting votes.
> /paulc
> ...


a comment on Philip's objection in 

> ...
> More importantly, the suggested change does not appear to actually align the spec with RFC2616, which was the whole point. Here's my reading:
> 1. Start at Content-Type <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.17>
> 2. Follow reference to Media Types <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.7>
> 3. Find "Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of attribute/value pairs (as defined in section 3.6)" It says MAY, so I would really stop here, saying that HTTP doesn't define how to parse parameters of Content-Type.

How so? You seem to have a strange understanding about what MAY/OPTIONAL 

> 4. Ignore the MAY and follow the reference to Transfer Codings <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.6>
> 5. Follow the reference to quoted-string in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-2.2>
> We've arrived at:
> quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
> qdtext = <any TEXT except <">>
> quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
> Since the suggested change doesn't handle the backslash-escaping mechanism, it is failing to 'parse quotes in Content-Type headers in "meta" elements in a HTTP compliant manner', so it would not be appropriate remove the willful violation note based on the reasoning in this CP.

Implementing backslash-escaping is a separate issue (ISSUE-126). I have 
tried to treat these as orthogonal issues, and the CP is pretty clear 
about that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2011 17:51:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:32 UTC