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

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <> Thu, 17 November 2016 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD53C12946E for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d8ssX40_UhSJ for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7AD4129455 for <>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:31:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c7W5c-0002ia-DP for; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1c7W5S-0002fp-85 for; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:22 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1c7W5M-0006ko-63 for; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:27:17 +0000
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3CE2738B; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id uAHNQqDV007332; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:52 GMT (envelope-from
To: Julian Reschke <>
cc: HTTP Working Group <>
In-reply-to: <>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:26:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=;;
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: 1c7W5M-0006ko-63 c0ed896c3933e1e92c1bc82e4e2e2054
Subject: Re: RFC 5987bis WG last call - naming the encoding
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/32931
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

In message <>, 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 

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 ; \

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.