16.01.2012, в 15:15, Geoffrey Garen написал(а): >> 1) Standards compliance. > > To me, this seems like your strongest argument. However…
I'm pretty sure that no major browser implements - or maybe even intends to implement - all encoding-related aspects of RFC 6266. For example, Chrome uses default encoding instead of US-ASCII to interpret Content-Disposition bytes. This is clearly a case of using external context to interpret the response, and a violation of letter and spirit of the spec. There is a long history of HTTP related specs disregarding browser needs when it comes to non-ASCII characters in headers fields, or to stateful interpretation of responses. This is a discussion that we had before, including on this list. I don't think that enough has changed to make spending time on this again very useful. The whole topic is quite isolated and inconsequential, so the intensity of argument (particularly in bug 67882 and its patch) does not appear adequate. - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
