Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 13:29:33 -0000

Julian Reschke wrote:
>>  
>>     I know of RFC 2047 and RFC 2231, as well as unencoded UTF-8 and
>>     unencoded ISO-8859-1 (I think).
>
> No surprise here

Yes, but one wonders if the unencoded UTF-8 actually does any harm at all in a 
8bit/binary-safe protocol like HTTP.

If most processors accept this - and I have no idea - it might even be useful 
to document.

Dave.

Sent with [inky: <http://inky.com?kme=signature>]

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:35 +0200

On 2013-09-19 15:29, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Yes, but one wonders if the unencoded UTF-8 actually does any harm at
> all in a 8bit/binary-safe protocol like HTTP.
>
> If most processors accept this - and I have no idea - it might even be
> useful to document.

The risk here is that some UAs send ISO-8859-1 (or something based on 
the locale), and servers parse based on the User-Agent. We have the same 
problem with the Content-Disposition response header field.

It's hard to change these kinds of workarounds in deployed code, and 
that's why a new mechanism that can't be confused with the old syntax 
may work better (thus RFC 5987).

Best regards, Julian