W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

RE: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:51:11 -0700
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d001c898c7$347cb100$0302a8c0@T60>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> I want to make progress -- whether on this issue or others doesn't  
> matter much. If you have suggestions for doing so -- such as you've  
> given below -- they're very welcome. In particular, if there are  
> issues that you (or anyone else) think we'd profit from focusing on,  
> I'd love to hear it; I've repeatedly asked for input on this, and  
> haven't received much.

I am really interested in seeing how the issues with conditional
requests on content-negotiated resources will get resolved (i22, i37,
i38, i39, i58, i69, i71, i89, i101, i107, i109, i110). Content
negotiation is being used everywhere (Vary: Content-Encoding), but ETags
for content-negotiated resources are not processed uniformly in existing
implementations. In particular, ETag handling for mod_deflate varies
considerably even between some minor ("bug-fix") updates of Apache. As
more applications start using conditional requests (especially PUT),
these differences make interoperability difficult. In order to resolve
these issues, it looks like the WG will have to declare that many (most?
all?) deployed implementations are wrong. It is a bad idea to defer
these issues any longer because they are important but probably
contentious; resolving these issues would be a good test to see if a
HTTPbis will be able to move forward on a reasonable schedule. 

Regards,
Brian
Received on Monday, 7 April 2008 15:51:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:46 GMT