Re: Slug header encoding

[Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>]

Tim Bray schrieb:
> 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.

I fully agree that we need one encoding everybody can rely on. For that, 
it's sufficient to say that the server must accept UTF-8 encoding 
(similarly to XML requiring support for UTF-8/UTF-16).

As for the URI escaping proposal: I made the same proposal a long time 
ago, for the same reasons (my doubts of people getting RFC2047 support 
right). Back then I was told that there are libraries out there doing it 
for us, and that this is no problem :-).

Note that WebDAV Versioning (RFC3253) uses %-escaping in the "Label" 
header exactly for that reason 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.8.3>).

Best regards, Julian