On 8/7/06 9:47 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Server implementations
> MAY attempt to comply with the request.
This sounds and feels negative to me, as if we don't really believe that
PaceSlugHeader should really be supported. May I suggest instead:
"Server implementations MAY ignore the Slug header."
> The syntax of this header MUST conform to the augmented BNF grammar in
> section 2.1 of the HTTP/1.1 specification [RFC2616]. The [TEXT] rule is
> described in section 2.2 of the same document. Words of *TEXT MAY
> contain characters from character sets other than [ISO88591] only when
> encoded according to the rules of [RFC2047].
>
A simple example after this paragraph would be appreciated (in addition to
the example preceding)
For example,
POST /myblog/fotes HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Content- Type: image/png
Content- Length: nnnn
Slug: Drinking-coffee-at-the-caf%xx%xx
...binary data...
(with the appropriate %encoding, of course)
I say this because without the example I would have guessed that é would be
encoded as %8E ... which would be wrong :-(
e.
