Subject: Re: UTF-8 Encoding Question

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:45:28 -0500

> JimW: can we list this as an "Issue" for RFC 2518?

It's now listed as URL_ENCODING_ISSUES and references this discussion.
Let's go ahead and resolve this.

---

From: "John Glavin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 11:39:45 -0800

I know IIS supports Unicode when URL's are encoded in UTF-8, but does any
DAV server out there understand DBCS/MBCS ?

DBCS/MBCS:  double byte or multi byte character set used for far east
languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean).  It's a mix of single byte and
multibyte characters.  The multi-byte characters are encoding as two bytes
with a lead and trail byte.  DBCS strings have to be parsed by software that
knows about DBCS because some special characters like backslash can appear
in the trail byte which could confuse some software when parsing path's for
example.

John Glavin
RiverFront Software
[email-masked]
http://www.webdrive.com

---

From: "Kevin Dyer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:11:21 -0500

All,

This brings up the RFC2047 / RFC2184 / RFC2231
encoding vs RCF2279 UTF-8 encoding.  Do we need to 
support both?

		kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John Glavin
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 2:40 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Do any DAV servers support DBCS/MBCS ?
> 
> 
____________________________________________

Kevin J. Dyer
Sr. Technologist, Product Management
[email-masked]

TEL:     978-322-2011
FAX:     978-441-0071
MOBILE:  978-314-9855

MatrixOne, Inc.
Two Executive Drive
Chelmsford, MA  01824  USA
www.matrixone.com

The First in Intelligent Collaborative Commerce
____________________________________________

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 11:22:19 -0500

> encoding vs RCF2279 UTF-8 encoding.  Do we need to

<checks> OK, 2047 (updated by 2184 and 2231) is for non-ASCII content in headers,
not in the body.  2616 refers to 2047; 2616/2.2 says:

     Words
     of *TEXT MAY contain characters from character sets other than ISO-
     8859-1 [22] only when encoded according to the rules of RFC 2047
     [14].

To me, that says any HTTP/1.1 implementation needs to (SHOULD? MUST?) support
2047 (presumably, as updated by 2231, since that predates 2616).  However, TEXT
"is only used for descriptive field contents and values that are not intended to
be interpreted by the message parser" (2616/2.2, again); it apparently does not
apply to URIs.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |But how do we know destroying the Van Allen belt|
[email-masked]|will kill all life on Earth if we don't try it? |
\=================================================================/