Subject: Re: paramname in draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04

From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:50:24 +0100

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:18:43 +0100, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>  
wrote:
> So overall, I think it's better to stick to
>
>    encoding="value"
>
> and hard-wire the value to "UTF-8". (I'm open to renaming the parameter  
> to "enc" or "charset")

Other than XML, is there a precedent for using "encoding"? Most places use  
"charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML).

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:58:07 +0100

>"charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML).

DOM Level 3 Core uses xmlEncoding and inputEncoding, XSLT uses output-
encoding, .NET uses System.Text.Encoding.*, Google search uses "ie" and
"oe" parameters indicating "encoding", ... It seems unlikely you could
make a sensible argument about usage (outside the context of HTTP
headers, which includes "HTML") to choose one over the other here.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:13:31 +0100

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 04:58:07 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>  
wrote:
>> Other than XML, is there a precedent for using "encoding"? Most places  
>> use "charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML).
>

Well, CSS has @charset, and HTML has a charset attribute. And xmlEncoding  
and inputEncoding are on their way out. I think it would make more sense  
to keep using charset as a keyword.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:55:26 +0100

On 2012-02-04 08:13, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Other than XML, is there a precedent for using "encoding"? Most
>>> places use "charset" I think (HTTP, CSS, HTML).
>>
> Well, CSS has @charset, and HTML has a charset attribute. And
> xmlEncoding and inputEncoding are on their way out. I think it would
> make more sense to keep using charset as a keyword.

One thing that bothers me more is potential confusion with specifying 
the charset of parameters in WWW-Authenticate.

People who do not read specs might read the following

   WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="something", charset="UTF-8"

as

   "something" is encoded in UTF-8.

Now there's not a lot we can do about people not reading specs, but how 
about:

   WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="something", accept-charset="UTF-8"

? (Stolen from 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/forms.html#adef-accept-charset>)

Best regards, Julian

---

From: "Anne van Kesteren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:56:07 +0100

>    WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="something", accept-charset="UTF-8"

Works for me. It only accepts "UTF-8" (case-insensitive) as value right?

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:16:57 +0100

For "basic" that would be reasonable. Is this also intended to work
for Digest or NTLM? 

If so, it would be useful for legacy systems that have stored password
hashes in other encodings to announce the encoding they need. (If I remember
implementation of digest and ntlm correctly)

//Stefan

Am 05.02.2012 um 12:56 schrieb Anne van Kesteren:

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:55:26 +0100, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Now there's not a lot we can do about people not reading specs, but how about:
>> 

<green/>bytes GmbH
Hafenweg 16, 48155 Münster, Germany
Phone: +49 251 2807760. Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:35:00 +0100

> Works for me. It only accepts "UTF-8" (case-insensitive) as value right?

Yes. that's the plan.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 14:35:58 +0100

> For "basic" that would be reasonable. Is this also intended to work

It might, but I haven't checked. Let's start with something simple.

> ...

Best regards, Julian