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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:13:21 +1000
Cc: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7D8365F5-5589-4D70-AD77-D1BBE6572F5E@mnot.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>

Thanks for the input.

Many (but not all) of those have some amount of dependency upon i109.  
I've been writing a straw-man proposal for it in the background, and  
should post it soon (please don't let that stop you if you have ideas).

I don't know that I agree we'll have to declae so many implementations  
as wrong, but let's see where we go.

Cheers,


On 08/04/2008, at 1:51 AM, Brian Smith wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:14:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT