W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: Comments on the HTTP/1.0 draft.

From: <hallam@alws.cern.ch>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:17:14 +0100
Message-Id: <9412071417.AA27892@dxmint.cern.ch>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com

To sum up Marcs argument:

1) The performance hit is not too great
2) If there is no reason to do it and no reason not to then follow the spec.

I do not want cannonicalisation under any circumstances. I have had my fill
of systems that "canonicalise" trying to be "clever". Such systems break
much much more than they mend. Like the FTP ASCII transfer mode which is
enabled by default in most FTP clients (but not some of the more modern ones).

In most cases canonicalisation is simply impractical, if the message body is
compressed then canonicalisation is a loser.

What the MIME specs state in this area is irrelevant. MIME is designed to
pass through mail gateways. HTTP is not. It is the 8 bit clean restriction
that is HTTPs main win over other protocols.


This is a character set issue, not a content type issue. If people want to
propose that the default characterset interprets CRLF in this manner then
fair enough. 

	Phill.
Received on Wednesday, 7 December 1994 06:29:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:09 EDT