- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:20:38 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org
* Mark Nottingham wrote:
>One immediate area of concern; some other uses of the "x-" prefix are
>optional, and it may be that some software is out there that
>recognises "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" and "application/www-
>form-urlencoded".
>
>Have you looked into this, or considered using a more distinct
>subtype to avoid such problems?
PHP5 and CGI.pm do not apply any special treatment to entities of this
type, and if I remember correctly, the same applies to JSP and .NET /
their frameworks. There may be well some scripts that "recognize" the
type in some way, and process entities of this type in some incompatible
way, but I don't think this poses any problem. In order to pose a
problem you would need a situation where
* application a generates www-form-urlencoded enties in some in-
compatible form
* application b processes www-form-urlencoded enties in some in-
compatible way
* neither a nor b can be upgraded
* yet either or both wants to use the "new" www-form-urlencoded
format
I think this can be ruled out or at least ignored.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 28 September 2006 19:20:43 UTC