- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:48:30 PST
- To: mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch
- CC: Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr, Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr, www-international@w3.org, Alan_Barrett/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com, bobj@netscape.com, wjs@netscape.com, erik@netscape.com, Ed_Batutis/CAM/Lotus@crd.lotus.com
Martin, You haven't really said what's wrong with HTTP/1.1's choice of using RFC 1522 for warning messages except that - you think it is brainless stupidity - RFC 1522 was originally designed for something else - there's no reason to not have chosen something else - 'everybody in the i18n business' uses UTF-8 However, it wasn't 'brainless stupidity', in that the issue got fair consideration and a reasonable amount of thought. I believe that our consideration was that operating systems and web configurations on servers that normally do not use unicode internally should not be constrainted to convert the warning message strings to unicode merely to display an error message. Furthermore, the design doesn't preclude using Unicode, albeit RFC 1522's =?UTF-8?Q?method?= is a bit awkward, it's only a 12-byte overhead on a warning message. Larry
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 1996 18:49:21 UTC