Re: [ietf-types] Status of application/patch or text/patch?

On Jul 20, 2012 2:13 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
> >So do you believe we need a variant that is encoding-agnostics except
> >for CRLF detection?
>
> Certainly. An "encoding-aware" variant seems much less necessary.

Writing off this use case means I don't need to know the *resulting*
character encoding, but that doesn't mean I don't want to know the
character encoding of a patch which someone mails me or I encounter on the
web. Presuming that the patch matches the target is unreliable and invites
a proliferation of doubly-encoded Ås and buried f'ed up authors' names and
math symbols.

If we then say that we need a charset parameters, a naive agent already has
what it needs to suss out line breaks and render text. I'd rather not see
two media types with no principled descriminator so I'd like to see text/
with the usual charset rules.

> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-types mailing list
> ietf-types@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-types