Re: RFC 5987bis WG last call - naming the encoding

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Thu, 17 November 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD53C12946E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d8ssX40_UhSJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7AD4129455 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c7W5c-0002ia-DP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c7W5c-0002ia-DP@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1c7W5S-0002fp-85 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:22 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1c7W5M-0006ko-63 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:17 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3CE2738B; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id uAHNQqDV007332; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:52 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <b65d5148-29f0-5e8b-9375-590ca8e52357@gmx.de>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <b65d5148-29f0-5e8b-9375-590ca8e52357@gmx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <7330.1479425212.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:52 +0000
Message-ID: <7331.1479425212@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c7W5M-0006ko-63 c0ed896c3933e1e92c1bc82e4e2e2054
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC 5987bis WG last call - naming the encoding
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7331.1479425212@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32931
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--------
In message <b65d5148-29f0-5e8b-9375-590ca8e52357@gmx.de>de>, Julian Reschke writes:

>I got some great feedback from one of our chairs who checked how this 
>impacts *his* work on RFC 5988bis (which refers to RFC 5987) -- see 
><https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/267>.

So, silly question time...

The stuff in RFC5987bis overlaps but is incompatible with the
utf8-string in the "common structure" draft I've written.

We should spend a moment deciding what to do about that.

RFC5987bis is more general, in the sense that you can specify any
character set you want, including BAUDOT and EBCDIC, whereas CS
only makes room for utf8.

CS can adopt the RFC5987 charset tagging, and instead of utf8_string
have a general "non-ascii-string"

RFC5987bis also allows you to specify an optional language,
CS can obviously adopt that too.

But now that I actually look at it, I have at least
three questions about it:

First:  The RFC5987bis draft doesn't mention the Accept-Language
        header with a single word.  If the client says it
	only understands elbonian, we shouldn't send it hungarian
	strings in HTTP-headers ?

Second: Should we also make the charset optional, defaulting to
        ascii, to allow people to specify only the language ?

Third: Shouldn't we allow alternative languages ?

In other words, should this be legal ?

	Content-Type: liquid/beverage ; \
		type*=utf-8'de'wei%C39Fbier ; \
		type*=iso8859-1'da'hvede%D8l ; \
		type*=''white%20beer

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.