Subject: RE: [dav-dev] Re: Problem with OfficeXP and Accented characters

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 17:46:44 -0500

> Don't expect this to be handled by changes to HTTP
> or URI specifications.

It's good to know this.

> It is important for the WebDAV group to come up with
> a WebDAV spec that defines character encodings for
> file names and the relationship of filenames and encodings
> to URL strings.

Please forgive me if I'm being dense, but isn't this out of the realm of
WebDAV?
Although there have been some exceptions when people said a given feature
was unimplementable, we've usually said that we are only officially
concerned with
server  behaviors that are exposed to and testable/verifyable by a WebDAV
client.  If  we agree that this is still our philosophy, and that the use
of files in an
implementation is not visible to a client, then perhaps instead of adding
it to the base webdav spec,  someone should draft an RFC on this apart from
WebDAV that documents and resolves this issue.

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:24:15 +0100

Am Sonntag den, 24. Februar 2002, um 23:46, schrieb Jason Crawford:

> [...]

There are several aspects:
- HTTP needs to define default character encoding for URIs (UTF-8). 
It would
   be useful to have a defined way to specify other character encodings
   (parameter ;charset=xxx ?). Clients need to convert user input/output
   to/from URIs and currently, I think, this is not well defined. At 
least
   RFC 2616 is silent on this issue.
- WebDAV should define what the appropriate response is to a PUT/MKCOL
   with an "invalid" name for the new resurce. "Invalid" in that sense
   that the server cannot map it to its internal storage or will not
   permit certain characters.
   Maybe there should also be a optional Content-Location
   header in the response, indicating how the server names the new 
resource,
   in case this differs from the client (composite characters are one
   example of why this might be necessary).
- WebDAV could define how servers should map "external" names to URIs.
   An "external" name being for example file names not completely under
   the servers control or document names from an existing database.

//Stefan