- From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:47:44 +0100
- To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, zig <www-zig@w3.org>
At 14:07 21-02-2002 -0500, Ray Denenberg wrote: >(a) Assign an option bit for utf-8 encoding. >(b) Define an attribute for the encoding of a search term. >(c) Do both. I think I would be worried about doing both because of the added complexity. Of the two proposals, I favor (a) because I think it seems simpler, and my sense is that it will allow the cleanest fall-back for existing applications... Client suggests UTF-8, the server either rejects/ignores it, or approves. It's simple and clean, and as you suggest, it covers both search & retrieval. If you add a new attribute, you will be up against a large installed base of servers that react wildly unpredictably when faced with unknown attributes (or types). Many servers don't even check the attribute set OID, much less look at any attribute types they don't care about (the Bath profile & friends are changing this poor behavior, but it's a slow process). The Init option negotiation mechanism is beautiful in its simplicity -- it tends to work as you expect even when talking to a really dumb server. So put my vote down for (a). --Sebastian -- Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 16:47:34 UTC