2006/1/30, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thomas Broyer wrote: > > ... > > Well, given that "Server implementations MAY attempt to comply with > > the request" and "Server implementations MAY modify the requested > > string for any reason", I thought a SHOULD was enough. I don't know of > > any, but server implementors might have good reasons not to implement > > RFC2184… > > *If* there are good reasons not to implement RFC2184, then this spec has > an I18N problem, right?
Hmm, right. Even an implementation without any charset conversion facility (e.g. iconv or recode) can implement RFC2184. Such an implementation would only honnor slug-requests using known charsets, but I can't see any reason not to implement RFC2184. Let's go for a MUST? -- Thomas Broyer
