- From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 07:33:26 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On 18.04.01 at 06:57, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >* Terje Bless wrote: >>Is Iconv a showstopper for you? > >I'm on Windows NT, I have to get libiconv or something similar for the >iconv() implementation and get that running Didn't Brian get ActiveState to PPM it? <checks archives> Yup. See <URL:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2001JanMar/0221.html> for details. >I'm still fighting against other packages like XML::Parser 2.30... I'm willing to bet ActiveState has a PPM of that too. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's in the standard distribution! >>Would it be worthwhile to make a simple way to disable Iconv? At the >>expense of charset transliteration or by falling back to nkf or somesuch? > >Just using the (far superior, if you ask me ;-) Unicode::*-modules would >be the best option here. It's an option, and what Liam did IIRC, but it requires a bit of work to get right. Iconv is UNIX specific, but it's a standard. The Unicode modules are Perl specific. Investigating Unicode::* (and how Liam did it ;D) is on my TODO. >>> * use $q->redirect for redirects > >>CGI.pm doesn't allow for a body object (required by RFC 2616). I'll bug >>lstein about at some point. > >Why is just printing it out no option here? Doh! Ignore the funny little man in the corner; he doesn't know what he's talking about. CGI::redirect doesn't work how I thought it worked. Yes, we should use $q->redirect for redirects. Why? Did you hear me say anything different? You must be on drugs man! :-) >It's only 'suggested' by RFC 2616, i.e. it's a SHOULD not a MUST. In RFCese "SHOULD" means "must, unless there is a compelling reason to diverge and only if you are _sure_ you know what you are doing". IOW, both MUST and SHOULD denote requirements; MAY indicates an optional behaviour.
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2001 02:05:17 UTC