* Cullen Jennings wrote: >We are mandating UTF-8 as the charset which gives us the benefits would >hope. We don't want to have multiple charsets supported as we have noted >this reduces interoperability when some implementations don't bother to >implement charsets other than UTF-8. It's arbitrary choice that >increases what you need to implement and test, reduces interoperability, >and provides not benefits to the end user beyond what they get with >UTF-8.
I am thinking about this situation: Content-Type: application/p2p-overlay+xml;charset=iso-8859-2 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-15'?> ... and I am comparing it to this situation: Content-Type: application/xml;charset=iso-8859-2 <?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-15'?> ... The question is how implementations determine the encoding. I am saying there should be no difference between the two cases, so long as you use the `+xml` convention and an `application` type. That would require to either define a charset parameter, or remove the `+xml`. I do not care whether some `application/p2p-overlay+xml` implementations only support UTF-8, I just do not want this to be the same as: Content-Type: application/p2p-overlay+xml;dkjfashdkf=sdjhfaskdjfhas <?xml version='1.0' encoding='iso-8859-15'?> ... namely, an unrecognized parameter with an unrecognized value. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
