Re: UTF-8, CGI.pm and LWP: some observations

From the HTML 4.01 Specification:

The content type "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" is inefficient for sending large quantities of binary data or text containing non-ASCII characters. The content type "multipart/form-data" should be used for submitting forms that contain files, non-ASCII data, and binary data.

I know almost nothing about Java (these days) or .Net but I'd be very surprised (read: eyes wide and mouth agape in utter disbelief) if they didn't have plenty of support for multipart/form-data. It's what every browser uses for file uploads, for example...

So, it seems to me that the bottom line is that, even though you took a circuitous route there, you found the right way to be doing things.

-sauoq
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";

Comment on Re: UTF-8, CGI.pm and LWP: some observations

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: UTF-8, CGI.pm and LWP: some observations by scollyer (Sexton) on Oct 05, 2005 at 09:57 UTC
>but I'd be very surprised (read: eyes wide and mouth agape in >utter disbelief) if they didn't have plenty of support for >multipart/form-data. Me too. I was really trying to point out that sometimes it's just as important to consider cross-platform implementation issues as support in the particular environment that one is currently working. >So, it seems to me that the bottom line is that, even >though you took a circuitous route there, you found the >right way to be doing things. Probably, except that the point of departure on my circuitous route was determined by a spec. that required use of urlencoded forms, so the moral of the story may be "if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here". Steve Collyer	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: UTF-8, CGI.pm and LWP: some observations
by scollyer (Sexton) on Oct 05, 2005 at 09:57 UTC

Me too. I was really trying to point out that sometimes it's just as important to consider cross-platform implementation issues as support in the particular environment that one is currently working.

>So, it seems to me that the bottom line is that, even
>though you took a circuitous route there, you found the
>right way to be doing things.

Probably, except that the point of departure on my circuitous route was determined by a spec. that required use of urlencoded forms, so the moral of the story may be "if I wanted to get there, I wouldn't start from here".

Steve Collyer

[reply]