On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:33 PM, James M Snell wrote:
I would have absolutely no problem requiring that implementations support UTF-8 encoding with RFC2047. I also have no problem with the idea of supporting %-encoding of the Slug value. There's actually nothing in the spec stopping implementations from doing so today other than the not being able to predict how servers will handle it. Unfortunately, I don't think there's really any chance of getting a consensus on using the %-encoding approach.
I find Asakura-san very persuasive. He's telling us clearly that what we have there isn't a basis for interoperation. Why don't we just say "The slug MUST be %-encoded UTF-8?" or "The slug MUST be RFC2047-encoded UTF-8?", end of story. Neither of them are rocket science to implement.
-Tim