Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters
draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-01



HTTP Working Group                                            J. Reschke
Internet-Draft                                                greenbytes
Obsoletes: 5987 (if approved)                              March 4, 2016
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: September 5, 2016

    Indicating Character Encoding and Language for HTTP Header Field
                               Parameters
                    draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-01

Abstract

   By default, message header field parameters in Hypertext Transfer
   Protocol (HTTP) messages cannot carry characters outside the ISO-
   8859-1 character set.  RFC 2231 defines an encoding mechanism for use
   in Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) headers.  This
   document specifies an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields
   that is compatible with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC
   2231.

Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

   Discussion of this draft takes place on the HTTPBIS working group
   mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org), which is archived at
   <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/>.

   Working Group information can be found at <http://httpwg.github.io/>;
   source code and issues list for this draft can be found at
   <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions>.

   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix C.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding  . . . .  4
     3.1.  Parameter Continuations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language
           Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.2.  Historical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2.3.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Language Specification in Encoded Words  . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions  . . . .  9
     4.1.  When to Use the Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 5987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix B.  Implementation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Appendix C.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.1.  Since RFC5987  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-01  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-02  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.5.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.6.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-04  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.7.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-05  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.8.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-06  . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     C.9.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-00 . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix D.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

1.  Introduction

   By default, message header field parameters in HTTP ([RFC2616])
   messages cannot carry characters outside the ISO-8859-1 coded
   character set ([ISO-8859-1]).  RFC 2231 ([RFC2231]) defines an
   encoding mechanism for use in MIME headers.  This document specifies
   an encoding suitable for use in HTTP header fields that is compatible
   with a profile of the encoding defined in RFC 2231.

   This document obsoletes [RFC5987] and moves it to "historic" status;
   the changes are summarized in Appendix A.

      Note: in the remainder of this document, RFC 2231 is only
      referenced for the purpose of explaining the choice of features
      that were adopted; they are therefore purely informative.

      Note: this encoding does not apply to message payloads transmitted
      over HTTP, such as when using the media type "multipart/form-data"
      ([RFC2388]).

2.  Notational Conventions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This specification uses the ABNF (Augmented Backus-Naur Form)
   notation defined in [RFC5234].  The following core rules are included
   by reference, as defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters),
   DIGIT (decimal 0-9), HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), and LWSP
   (linear whitespace).

   This specification uses terminology defined in [RFC6365], namely:
   "character encoding scheme" (below abbreviated to "character
   encoding"), "charset" and "coded character set".

   Note that this differs from RFC 2231, which uses the term "character
   set" for "character encoding scheme".

3.  Comparison to RFC 2231 and Definition of the Encoding

   RFC 2231 defines several extensions to MIME.  The sections below
   discuss if and how they apply to HTTP header fields.

   In short:

   o  Parameter Continuations aren't needed (Section 3.1),

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

   o  Character Encoding and Language Information are useful, therefore
      a simple subset is specified (Section 3.2), and

   o  Language Specifications in Encoded Words aren't needed
      (Section 3.3).

3.1.  Parameter Continuations

   Section 3 of [RFC2231] defines a mechanism that deals with the length
   limitations that apply to MIME headers.  These limitations do not
   apply to HTTP ([RFC7231], Appendix A.6).

   Thus, parameter continuations are not part of the encoding defined by
   this specification.

3.2.  Parameter Value Character Encoding and Language Information

   Section 4 of [RFC2231] specifies how to embed language information
   into parameter values, and also how to encode non-ASCII characters,
   dealing with restrictions both in MIME and HTTP header field
   parameters.

   However, RFC 2231 does not specify a mandatory-to-implement character
   encoding, making it hard for senders to decide which encoding to use.
   Thus, recipients implementing this specification MUST support the
   "UTF-8" character encoding [RFC3629].

   Furthermore, RFC 2231 allows the character encoding information to be
   left out.  The encoding defined by this specification does not allow
   that.

3.2.1.  Definition

   The syntax for parameters is defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616]
   (with RFC 2616 implied LWS translated to RFC 5234 LWSP):

     parameter     = attribute LWSP "=" LWSP value

     attribute     = token
     value         = token / quoted-string

     quoted-string = <quoted-string, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
     token         = <token, see [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>

   In order to include character encoding and language information, this
   specification modifies the RFC 2616 grammar to be:

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

     parameter     = reg-parameter / ext-parameter

     reg-parameter = parmname LWSP "=" LWSP value

     ext-parameter = parmname "*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value

     parmname      = 1*attr-char

     ext-value     = charset  "'" [ language ] "'" value-chars
                   ; like RFC 2231's <extended-initial-value>
                   ; (see [RFC2231], Section 7)

     charset       = "UTF-8" / mime-charset

     mime-charset  = 1*mime-charsetc
     mime-charsetc = ALPHA / DIGIT
                   / "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&"
                   / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`"
                   / "{" / "}" / "~"
                   ; as <mime-charset> in Section 2.3 of [RFC2978]
                   ; except that the single quote is not included
                   ; SHOULD be registered in the IANA charset registry

     language      = <Language-Tag, see [RFC5646], Section 2.1>

     value-chars   = *( pct-encoded / attr-char )

     pct-encoded   = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
                   ; see [RFC3986], Section 2.1

     attr-char     = ALPHA / DIGIT
                   / "!" / "#" / "$" / "&" / "+" / "-" / "."
                   / "^" / "_" / "`" / "|" / "~"
                   ; token except ( "*" / "'" / "%" )

   Thus, a parameter is either a regular parameter (reg-parameter), as
   previously defined in Section 3.6 of [RFC2616], or an extended
   parameter (ext-parameter).

   Extended parameters are those where the left-hand side of the
   assignment ends with an asterisk character.

   The value part of an extended parameter (ext-value) is a token that
   consists of three parts: the REQUIRED character encoding name
   (charset), the OPTIONAL language information (language), and a
   character sequence representing the actual value (value-chars),
   separated by single quote characters.  Note that both character
   encoding names and language tags are restricted to the US-ASCII coded

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

   character set, and are matched case-insensitively (see [RFC2978],
   Section 2.3 and [RFC5646], Section 2.1.1).

   Inside the value part, characters not contained in attr-char are
   encoded into an octet sequence using the specified character
   encoding.  That octet sequence is then percent-encoded as specified
   in Section 2.1 of [RFC3986].

   Producers MUST use the "UTF-8" ([RFC3629]) character encoding.
   Extension character encodings (mime-charset) are reserved for future
   use.

      Note: recipients should be prepared to handle encoding errors,
      such as malformed or incomplete percent escape sequences, or non-
      decodable octet sequences, in a robust manner.  This specification
      does not mandate any specific behavior, for instance, the
      following strategies are all acceptable:

      *  ignoring the parameter,

      *  stripping a non-decodable octet sequence,

      *  substituting a non-decodable octet sequence by a replacement
         character, such as the Unicode character U+FFFD (Replacement
         Character).

3.2.2.  Historical Notes

   The RFC 7230 token production ([RFC7230], Section 3.2.6) differs from
   the production used in RFC 2231 (imported from Section 5.1 of
   [RFC2045]) in that curly braces ("{" and "}") are excluded.  Thus,
   these two characters are excluded from the attr-char production as
   well.

   The <mime-charset> ABNF defined here differs from the one in Section
   2.3 of [RFC2978] in that it does not allow the single quote character
   (see also RFC Errata ID 1912 [Err1912]).  In practice, no character
   encoding names using that character have been registered at the time
   of this writing.

   For backwards compatibility with RFC 2231, the encoding defined by
   this specification deviates from common parameter syntax in that the
   quoted-string notation is not allowed.  Implementations using generic
   parser components might not be able to detect the use of quoted-
   string notation and thus might accept that format, although invalid,
   as well.

   [RFC5987] did require support for ISO-8859-1, too; for compatibility

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

   with legacy code, recipients are encouraged to support this encoding
   as well.

3.2.3.  Examples

   Non-extended notation, using "token":

     foo: bar; title=Economy

   Non-extended notation, using "quoted-string":

     foo: bar; title="US-$ rates"

   Extended notation, using the Unicode character U+00A3 ("£", POUND
   SIGN):

     foo: bar; title*=utf-8'en'%C2%A3%20rates

   Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the
   octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, then
   percent-encoded.  Also, note that the space character was encoded as
   %20, as it is not contained in attr-char.

   Extended notation, using the Unicode characters U+00A3 ("£", POUND
   SIGN) and U+20AC ("€", EURO SIGN):

     foo: bar; title*=UTF-8''%c2%a3%20and%20%e2%82%ac%20rates

   Note: the Unicode pound sign character U+00A3 was encoded into the
   octet sequence C2 A3 using the UTF-8 character encoding, then
   percent-encoded.  Likewise, the Unicode euro sign character U+20AC
   was encoded into the octet sequence E2 82 AC, then percent-encoded.
   Also note that HEXDIG allows both lowercase and uppercase characters,
   so recipients must understand both, and that the language information
   is optional, while the character encoding is not.

3.3.  Language Specification in Encoded Words

   Section 5 of [RFC2231] extends the encoding defined in [RFC2047] to
   also support language specification in encoded words.  RFC 2616, the
   now-obsolete HTTP/1.1 specification, did refer to RFC 2047
   ([RFC2616], Section 2.2).  However, it wasn't clear to which header
   field it applied.  Consequently, the current revision of the HTTP/1.1
   specification has deprecated use of the encoding forms defined in RFC
   2047 (see Section 3.2.4 of [RFC7230]).

   Thus, this specification does not include this feature.

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

4.  Guidelines for Usage in HTTP Header Field Definitions

   Specifications of HTTP header fields that use the extensions defined
   in Section 3.2 ought to clearly state that.  A simple way to achieve
   this is to normatively reference this specification, and to include
   the ext-value production into the ABNF for that header field.

   For instance:

     foo-header  = "foo" LWSP ":" LWSP token ";" LWSP title-param
     title-param = "title" LWSP "=" LWSP value
                 / "title*" LWSP "=" LWSP ext-value
     ext-value   = <see RFC 5987, Section 3.2>

      Note: The Parameter Value Continuation feature defined in Section
      3 of [RFC2231] makes it impossible to have multiple instances of
      extended parameters with identical parmname components, as the
      processing of continuations would become ambiguous.  Thus,
      specifications using this extension are advised to disallow this
      case for compatibility with RFC 2231.

      Note: This specification does not automatically assign a new
      interpretration to parameter names ending in an asterisk.  As
      pointed out above, it's up to the specification for the non-
      extended parameter to "opt in" to the syntax defined here.  That
      being said, some existing implementations are known to
      automatically switch to the use of this notation when a parameter
      name ends with an asterisk, thus using parameter names ending in
      an asterisk for something else is likely to cause interoperability
      problems.

4.1.  When to Use the Extension

   Section 4.2 of [RFC2277] requires that protocol elements containing
   human-readable text are able to carry language information.  Thus,
   the ext-value production ought to be always used when the parameter
   value is of textual nature and its language is known.

   Furthermore, the extension ought to also be used whenever the
   parameter value needs to carry characters not present in the US-ASCII
   ([USASCII]) coded character set (note that it would be unacceptable
   to define a new parameter that would be restricted to a subset of the
   Unicode character set).

4.2.  Error Handling

   Header field specifications need to define whether multiple instances
   of parameters with identical parmname components are allowed, and how

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016               [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

   they should be processed.  This specification suggests that a
   parameter using the extended syntax takes precedence.  This would
   allow producers to use both formats without breaking recipients that
   do not understand the extended syntax yet.

   Example:

     foo: bar; title="EURO exchange rates";
               title*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20exchange%20rates

   In this case, the sender provides an ASCII version of the title for
   legacy recipients, but also includes an internationalized version for
   recipients understanding this specification -- the latter obviously
   ought to prefer the new syntax over the old one.

      Note: at the time of this writing, many implementations failed to
      ignore the form they do not understand, or prioritize the ASCII
      form although the extended syntax was present.

5.  Security Considerations

   The format described in this document makes it possible to transport
   non-ASCII characters, and thus enables character "spoofing"
   scenarios, in which a displayed value appears to be something other
   than it is.

   Furthermore, there are known attack scenarios relating to decoding
   UTF-8.

   See Section 10 of [RFC3629] for more information on both topics.

   In addition, the extension specified in this document makes it
   possible to transport multiple language variants for a single
   parameter, and such use might allow spoofing attacks, where different
   language versions of the same parameter are not equivalent.  Whether
   this attack is useful as an attack depends on the parameter
   specified.

6.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA Considerations related to this specification.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

                 RFC2119, March 1997,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2616]     Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
                 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
                 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, DOI 10.17487/
                 RFC2616, June 1999,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2616>.

   [RFC2978]     Freed, N. and J. Postel, "IANA Charset Registration
                 Procedures", BCP 19, RFC 2978, DOI 10.17487/RFC2978,
                 October 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2978>.

   [RFC3629]     Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
                 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629,
                 November 2003,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.

   [RFC3986]     Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
                 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                 STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.

   [RFC5234]     Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for
                 Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
                 DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5646]     Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
                 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, DOI 10.17487/
                 RFC5646, September 2009,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5646>.

   [RFC7230]     Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
                 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and
                 Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>.

   [RFC7231]     Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext
                 Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
                 RFC 7231, DOI 10.17487/RFC7231, June 2014,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7231>.

   [USASCII]     American National Standards Institute, "Coded Character
                 Set -- 7-bit American Standard Code for Information
                 Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

7.2.  Informative References

   [Err1912]     RFC Errata, "Errata ID 1912, RFC 2978",
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org>.

   [ISO-8859-1]  International Organization for Standardization,
                 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
                 graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No.
                 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.

   [RFC2045]     Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
                 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet
                 Message Bodies", RFC 2045, DOI 10.17487/RFC2045,
                 November 1996,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2045>.

   [RFC2047]     Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
                 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
                 Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, DOI 10.17487/RFC2047,
                 November 1996,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2047>.

   [RFC2231]     Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
                 Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
                 Continuations", RFC 2231, DOI 10.17487/RFC2231,
                 November 1997,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2231>.

   [RFC2277]     Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
                 Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, DOI 10.17487/RFC2277,
                 January 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2277>.

   [RFC2388]     Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/
                 form-data", RFC 2388, DOI 10.17487/RFC2388,
                 August 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2388>.

   [RFC5987]     Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
                 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
                 Parameters", RFC 5987, DOI 10.17487/RFC5987,
                 August 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5987>.

   [RFC5988]     Nottingham, M., "Web Linking", RFC 5988, DOI 10.17487/
                 RFC5988, October 2010,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5988>.

   [RFC6266]     Reschke, J., "Use of the Content-Disposition Header
                 Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)",
                 RFC 6266, DOI 10.17487/RFC6266, June 2011,

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 12]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6266>.

   [RFC6365]     Hoffman, P. and J. Klensin, "Terminology Used in
                 Internationalization in the IETF", BCP 166, RFC 6365,
                 DOI 10.17487/RFC6365, September 2011,
                 <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6365>.

Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 5987

   This section summarizes the changes compared to [RFC5987]:

   o  The document title was changed to "Indicating Character Encoding
      and Language for HTTP Header Field Parameters".

   o  The requirement to support the "ISO-8859-1" encoding was removed.

Appendix B.  Implementation Report

   The encoding defined in this document currently is used for two
   different HTTP header fields:

   o  "Content-Disposition", defined in [RFC6266], and

   o  "Link", defined in [RFC5988].

   As the encoding is a profile/clarification of the one defined in
   [RFC2231] in 1997, many user agents already supported it for use in
   "Content-Disposition" when [RFC5987] got published.

   Since the publication of [RFC5987], three more popular desktop user
   agents have added support for this encoding; see <http://purl.org/
   NET/http/content-disposition-tests#encoding-2231-char> for details.
   At this time, the current versions of all major desktop user agents
   support it.

   Note that the implementation in Internet Explorer 9 does not support
   the ISO-8859-1 character encoding; this document revision
   acknowledges that UTF-8 is sufficient for expressing all code points,
   and removes the requirement to support ISO-8859-1.

   The "Link" header field, on the other hand, was only recently
   specified in [RFC5988].  At the time of this writing, no shipping
   User Agent except Firefox supported the "title*" parameter (starting
   with release 15).

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 13]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

Appendix C.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)

C.1.  Since RFC5987

   Only editorial changes for the purpose of starting the revision
   process (obs5987).

C.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-00

   Resolved issues "iso-8859-1" and "title" (title simplified).  Added
   and resolved issue "historic5987".

C.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-01

   Added issues "httpbis", "parmsyntax", "terminology" and
   "valuesyntax".  Closed issue "impls".

C.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-02

   Resolved issue "terminology".

C.5.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-03

   In Section 3.2, pull historical notes into a separate subsection.
   Resolved issues "valuesyntax" and "parmsyntax".

C.6.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-04

   Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.

C.7.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-05

   Update status of Firefox support in HTTP Link Header field.

C.8.  Since draft-reschke-rfc5987bis-06

   Update status with respect to Safari 6.

   Started work on update with respect to RFC 723x.

C.9.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-00

   Editorial changes; introducing non-ASCII characters into author's
   address, acknowledgements, and examples.

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 14]
Internet-Draft      Charset/Language Encoding in HTTP         March 2016

Appendix D.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Martin Dürst and Frank Ellermann for help figuring out
   ABNF details, to Graham Klyne and Alexey Melnikov for general review,
   to Chris Newman for pointing out an RFC 2231 incompatibility, and to
   Benjamin Carlyle, Roar Lauritzsen, Eric Lawrence, and James Manger
   for implementer's feedback.

Author's Address

   Julian F. Reschke
   greenbytes GmbH
   Hafenweg 16
   Münster, NW  48155
   Germany

   EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/

Reschke                 Expires September 5, 2016              [Page 15]