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

Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-03.txt

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:58:10 +1300
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <133b892256acdcbefef0cb8c0b2f1719@treenet.co.nz>
On 26.01.2012 05:00, Julian Reschke wrote:
> FYI: this is a minor update (adding a note about XHR sometimes using
> a different encoding default). At this point there's nothing left to
> do here except for waiting for feedback; hopefully from implementers.
> Should I try to get it published as is?
>

I have a few questions before going off and looking at implementing :)
(Sorry if I missed a Q about this already.)

In section 3 you say "UTF-8" is to be case-insensitive. The insensitive 
comparison is slower on bytes which need changing.
I assume we should send the exact spec text of upper case (instead of 
the popular de-facto lower-case) as a best practice for highest speed 
and uniformity of implementations?

I assume this is also not limited to WWW-Authenticate:. But applies 
equally to Proxy-Authenticate?


Nit: in appendix A.1 paragraph 2 the word "already" is spread very 
thick on the ground and makes the text seem dated. This is the new text 
right?


And what is the second sentence there trying to convey? that some U-A 
will violate this spec?

"
   Note that some user
    agents already have different defaults depending on whether the
    request originates from page navigation as opposed to a 
script-driven
    request using XMLHttpRequest [XHR].
"
IIRC there was wording sprinkled around various RFCs already calling 
such implementations "old" or similar to deprecate them and hint at the 
text loophole being removed in some future document revision.


AYJ
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 21:58:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT