- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:22:19 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Kevin Dyer wrote:
> This brings up the RFC2047 / RFC2184 / RFC2231
> encoding vs RCF2279 UTF-8 encoding. Do we need to
> support both?
<checks> OK, 2047 (updated by 2184 and 2231) is for non-ASCII content in headers,
not in the body. 2616 refers to 2047; 2616/2.2 says:
Words
of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047
[14].
To me, that says any HTTP/1.1 implementation needs to (SHOULD? MUST?) support
2047 (presumably, as updated by 2231, since that predates 2616). However, TEXT
"is only used for descriptive field contents and values that are not intended to
be interpreted by the message parser" (2616/2.2, again); it apparently does not
apply to URIs.
--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp. |But how do we know destroying the Van Allen belt|
|francis@ecal.com|will kill all life on Earth if we don't try it? |
\=================================================================/
Received on Monday, 5 March 2001 11:15:57 UTC