Andre-John Mas wrote: > Just to repeat what I stated in the ticket: > > The problem I have with the suggested approach is that it treats UTF-8 > as an > exception, rather that a norm for my whole application server. I am not > sure > that I should be having to be specifying the encoding before handling every > request. For a web site that is completely in UTF-8 that is a lot of > duplicated > code.
Because of rfc 2616 3.7.1; The "charset" parameter is used with some media types to define the character set (section 3.4) of the data. When no explicit charset parameter is provided by the sender, media subtypes of the "text" type are defined to have a default charset value of "ISO-8859-1" when received via HTTP. Data in character sets other than "ISO-8859-1" or its subsets MUST be labeled with an appropriate charset value. See section 3.4.1 for compatibility problems. > Also, I ask the question why should we allow one behaviour for the URI > in the > container and not allow for the same with regards to the POST? because the same does not apply, it's not a specific encoding. Header fields are 8859-1 per section 2.2, but URI's aren't defined as *TEXT. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
