W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:50:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdUt9p+TTQ4Qzsa4jVk7KdmtsHkj6S+z9YptJgvqXyqkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>
> On 27/04/2012, at 5:32 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>>
>> It may be because it's after midnight and I really should be getting
>> some sleep, but i don't quite follow what you're saying about
>> requiring knowledge of the headers to translate between the different
>> encodings.
>
> Right now, it's possible to encode non-Latin-1 characters into headers using an encoding, like that described in RFC5987.
>
> However, that isn't a blanket encoding; i.e. the header definition has to specify its use. Generic software can't just look at headers and say "look, that's internationalised"; it has to know the header's specific syntax to lift it up to UTF-8 (for example).
>
>

Right, but could we not "simply" do what WebSockets has done and
define distinct binary and text data frames in which the text frame
always assumes UTF-8? With such an approach, we would not need to
worry about things like RFC5987 or determining whether the header is
defined as being i18n'able.

- James
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:51:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 28 April 2012 01:51:50 GMT