Hi Dennis, I want to call a vote on 3.1.x today if possible - can you backmerge this fix?
Colm. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:39 PM Dennis Kieselhorst <d...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think the problem is the example in the specification, which do not > comply > > to this definition. But this is already covered since year 2000 *by a > errata > > for RFC-2392* > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/rfc2392 > > > > This errata contain the correct example that comply with the text: > > > > > > I think the definition make sense. The value behind "cid:" must be URI > > encoded, since in must be a valid URI. The HTTP header Content-ID has not > > limitation to be encoded. > > > > Do you agree with my interpretation? > > If yes, than we shall create an issue on CXF side and request a rollback > the > > changes done with CXF-7317 > > I fully agree, sorry for that, I had just taken a look at the example and > then merged the PR. I just reverted the changes and put a note on > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CXF-7317 and > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-4064. Will merge it to 3.1.x and > 3.2.x branch later today... > > Regards > Dennis > > > -- Colm O hEigeartaigh Talend Community Coder http://coders.talend.com
