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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:09:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4F207DA5.4030707@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-01-25 22:58, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> 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?

Dunno. Charsets are usually compared case-insensitively.

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

I haven't thought about that, but that seems correct. I'll need to add that.

> 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?

Ack. Will rephrase.

> 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].
> "

Well, it's stating a fact that many readers probably don't know, and 
which is relevant to the deployment...

> 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.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 22:10:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:00 UTC