I'm not now advocating using RFC1945 - I have obviously been overruled. There is no problem with 'x=y' format. There are many reasons for using standards, which I won't go into.
We need Unicode, because we might in future want to have fields such as 'synopsis', 'title', 'author', or other text-based search criteria in the MetaData. ASCII is not capable of representing languages other than English. Far better to support Unicode from the outset than have to kludge it in later. It's not as if it's difficult. Steve On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Travis Bemann wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 11:42:26AM +1200, Stephen Blackheath wrote: > > All righty, > > > > Content-Type=text/plain it is - Out the window with RFC1945. We will also > > need to specify how Unicode characters are dealt with - we could use the > > Java way (\uXXXX). > > > > In a couple of days, I'll have time to write a short doc about it. > > Unicode... Why don't we just stick with ASCII (which is *far* easier > to support that Unicode)? And why do we have to do something a > certain way because an RFC says so? And this particular RFC you > pointed out was HTTP/1.0 (which is not Freenet)? And what is the real > problem with <name>=<value> notation? > > -- > Travis Bemann > Sendmail is still screwed up on my box. > My email address is really bemann at execpc.com. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
