- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 09:58:30 +1100
- To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, that's one path we can take, but we need to make that decision. Separate from that, we need to determine whether omitting the C1 controls when using iso-8859-1 was an oversight, or purposeful; there's more than once character in that set. Cheers, On 04/04/2008, at 8:34 AM, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> Julian -- sorry, I mean to say that we need to consider excluding C1. >> >> Jamie -- if we later decided to allow UTF-8, we'd of course have to >> figure out how it fit into the overall picture. This sub-issue is >> just >> about whether we should allow C1 in iso-8859-1, as the spec is >> currently written. > > I see your point, but I think the reality at the moment is it's just > permission to transport high valued octets, with %x20-7F being ASCII. > I don't think anyone seriously treats the high values as iso-8859-1 > (except by accident). > > I'm thinking the current spec, plus current practice (assumed, not > thoroughly investigated), has a nice loophole to move it to UTF-8 > without breaking anything. > > The key thing is "without breaking anything". Even if there are a few > implementations which treat the upper octets as iso-8859-1, they will > continue working if we start sending UTF-8. > > -- Jamie -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 22:59:08 UTC