Re: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74]

Am 14.03.2008 um 11:46 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
>
> I think Larry was making much the same point at the app area arch  
> ws, IIRC.
>
> My gut feeling on issue 74 is that if any encoding (e.g., IRI->URI,  
> RFC2047) is usable in a header, it should be specified on a header- 
> by-header basis explicitly, not inherited as a general rule like  
> this. That allows the flexibility to use the right mechanism for  
> the job, and keeps the overhead low.
>
> Are there any other headers (besides URI-based headers) that we  
> need to consider, beyond these?
>  * WWW-Authenticate, Proxy-Authenticate, Authorization, Proxy- 
> Authorization
>  * Content-Disposition
>  * From
>  * Warning
>  * PICS-Label

The whole "Auth" header series does not have the problem, I think.  
All header values are ASCII.

Correct me if I'm wrong: the open issue is how to send user names/ 
passwords with non-ascii characters. But that is a matter of the auth  
mechanism to specify, not an issue with HTTP headers. Example: Basic  
puts Base64 values in the header. Those are always ASCII. But Base64  
operates on octets and Basic just fails to specify how a username is  
converted to octets, right?

//Stefan

--
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782