- From: A. Vine <andrea.vine@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:23:50 -0800
- To: Jungshik Shin <jshin@mailaps.org>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
What a response. }sigh{
Jungshik Shin wrote:
> A. Vine wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm with Steve.
>
>
> On what? I don't think he took any position.
Explained just after I made that comment, but since you didn't make the
connection - I'm with Steve who said he didn't use RFC 2231. I'm with
Steve who used RFC 2047. I agree with Steve's solution, as imperfect as
it may be.
>
>> RFC 2231 is so awkward and has so little support (it's
>> been around for many years and yet only now have even a few products
>> decided to support it)
>
>
> It's not more awkward than RFC 2047 for simple cases.
For simple cases. But you can't support RFC 2231 for "simple cases"
only. It is as awkward as RFC 2047 in simple cases but has the extra
disadvantage that it is different from RFC 2047, and RFC 2047 was
implemented first.
>
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=utf-8''abc%b3%80.txt
>
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="=?utf-8?q?abc=b3=80.txt?="
>
> It's not its awkwardness but mostly the ignorance that kept it from
> being implemented, IMHO.
>
>> that I never recommend using it.
>
>
> So, what do you recommend? Using 'raw' UTF-8 chars in http header is
> reasonable but using 'raw' non-ASCII/non-UTF-8 encodings must be avoided.
There are some who would recommend that, but I doubt you'd get very far
doing it that way. I would do what Steve did, in case that's not yet clear.
--
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.
-Bjarne Stroustrup, designer of C++ programming language (1950- )
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 13:13:28 UTC