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

Re: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:28:08 +0100
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120206062808.GH8334@1wt.eu>
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:01:56AM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> lör 2012-01-28 klockan 09:13 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
> > > I would apply a lossy conversion (reverse-mapping between UTF-8 and 8859-1).
> > > So whatever fits 8859-1 would correctly be mapped, and the rest would be lost
> > > or quoted. I don't think it's that big an issue if this is a well-known
> > 
> > There is no quoting we can use, unless we define a new one...
> Or we just accept that HTTP/1.1 implementations do not follow HTTP/1.1
> encoding specifications anyway for non-ascii data and simply say that
> when I18N  field values need to be gatewayed to HTTP/1.1 then send them
> as UTF-8 even if HTTP/1.1 specifications says otherwise, intentionally
> overriding HTTP/1.1 specifications.
> Sure it will break some to fix some (and mainly authentication), but
> it's not really such a big deal. In the end it's about the same amount
> of breakage as today, only different and more consistent.


> But it's a bad idea to open for I18N in field names.

+1. For me i18n should only appear in values. Otherwise we'll be dealing
with a big new can of worms caused by UTF-8 to anything conversion (eg:
multiple ways to write "Content-Length" because you can have a number of
UTF-8 hyphens which translate into "-").

Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 06:28:52 UTC

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