W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > January 2002


From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:17:45 -0800
Message-ID: <E840F0B7E6189547BDB91DA8BF2228AB28C127@csmail.cardiff.com>
To: "'Chris Haynes'" <chris@harvington.org.uk>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, www-forms@w3.org

My personal take is that HTTP GET is broken beyond repair for I18N-safe
form-data submission. This is part of the reason why it's deprecated in
XForms. Sending around bits of XML is a much better way to go.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Haynes [mailto:chris@harvington.org.uk]
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:31 PM
To: Micah Dubinko
Cc: 'Mark Nottingham'; www-forms@w3.org
Subject: Re: PUT


This provokes a related query.

Another list has just been having an animated discussion about the
ability of HTTP 'GET' from an HTML4.01 page to support international
character sets in the CGI data included with the URL (following a

The question arose because we discovered that a certain browser was
encoding characters like '' using an operating-system-specific
encoding, whereas a web server / servlet interface was assuming they
were encoded using UTF-8. We wanted to know who was 'wrong'.

After much reading of the relevant specs we concluded that all you can
rely on when using GET is the return of (7-Bit) ACSII codes.  Although
there is a '%' escape mechanism permitting code values above 0x80 to
be transmitted, we could find no standard for or means of specifying
what those high-value 8-bit codes actually represent; i.e. what
encoding they are using.

.If our conclusions were correct, is there an issue for XForms, which
in [1] below seems to support (HTTP1.x?) GET, yet also requires (or
implies) full UTF-8 support?

BTW, HTTP POST seems OK; the character encoding used by the browser is
reported in one of the MIME headers.

Chris Haynes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Micah Dubinko" <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>; <www-forms@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:29 AM
Subject: RE: PUT

> Mark,
> Good questions. Both will require discussion in the Working Group,
> but we'll get back to you soon.
> .micah
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: www-forms@w3.org
> Subject: PUT
> Is there any rationale for why XForms doesn't allow one to PUT an
> instance [1]?
> Regards,
> [1]
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 14:20:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:42 UTC