On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:06:39PM -0700, Jeff Shell wrote: > On 2/28/07, Philipp von Weitershausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >That's sorta what zope.publisher does. Actually, it figures that if the > >browser sends an Accept-Charset header, the stuff that its sending to us > >would be encoded in one of those encodings, so it tries the ones in > >Accept-Charset until it's lucky. It falls back to UTF-8. > > > >This seems to work. But yeah, it's relying on implementation details of > >the browser and it's weird. > > Ugh. I don't know how I missed that header. I was always looking for a > content-type on the post, hoping that it had the information.
I'm rather late to this particular party, and I'm far from an expert on either unicode or HTTP, but I have to ask: Is it just me, or is HTTP's support for specifying encodings completely inadequate? As far as I can tell, there are only two relevant headers. The request may specify Accept-Charset, whose meaning is given as "what character sets are acceptable for the *response*" (emphasis mine). The response may specify Content-Type, which again is irrelevant to the request. If there's anything that allows the client to specify the encoding in use *for the request data*, I don't see it. That seems like quite an oversight to make as late as HTTP 1.1 (1999). What am I missing? -PW -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com _______________________________________________ Zope3-users mailing list Zope3firstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users