• From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>
• To: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
• Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:28:04 +0100

On 2012-02-01 17:23, Richard Salz wrote:
> My wording wasn't clear enough.
>
> At the time, we all thought "netascii for headers" was the right thing to
> do.  So much so that the question of codesets in headers *never came up.*
> The entire IETF had this mindset, it was a truism, fundamental concept,
> statement of fact, fundamental postulate, etc. It was not "what about
> charset encodings?  Never mind"
>
> I use the pronoun "we" on purpose;
> http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec16.html#sec16
> ...

Which is a good opportunity to remind people that IETF specifications 
are influenced by those people who care enough to show up and help.

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki>

Now is the time.

• References:
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Tei <oscar.vives@g...>
  • Re: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • RE: RE: Encoding charset of HTTP Basic Authentication
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>