- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:51:58 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
On 02/04/2008, at 4:54 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > 1. We are considering allowing UTF-8 in content, specifically (a) in > newly defined headers, and/or (b) in places where TEXT is now. This will remain in i74, now Character Encodings in TEXT. > 2. We intend to remove the "blanket" RFC2047 encoding associated > with TEXT and (if kept) move it to the definitions of the individual > rules, so that it's clear where such encoding may occur. Candidates > for this include Reason-Phrase, filename-parm, warn-text, as well as > the comments in field-content. new issue: <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/111> > 3. If RFC2047 encoding is used / referenced, we need to more > carefully specify its use; e.g., regarding what encoding forms are > allowable, line length limits, charsets used, folding. Expanding #63 (now: RFC2047 encoded words) to include other aspects (63 and 111 can probably be addressed at the same time). > 4. From also deserves a look. Looking at p2, 10.3, I see we've already updated this to reference RFC2822. Does anyone feel we need to have a separate issue for this? > 5. Either the definition of TEXT or CTL may need the C1 control > characters added. Also in i74. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 00:52:41 UTC