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

Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:59:07 +0900
Message-ID: <501B84CB.7050104@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012/08/03 14:15, Adrien W. de Croy wrote:

> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>

>> Yes, a '#' or '?' in a path segment and similar stuff still have to be
>> %-encoded.
>
> if we're defining a new binary-safe transport for header values,
> shouldn't we try to avoid all multiplexing / escaping and parsing of
> strings?
>
> e.g. just put querystring in another "header" instead. Then anything can
> contain '?'

Well, yes, but then you might have a '=' or a '&' in an parameter value 
(hopefully not in a parameter name), and you will have to escape that. 
And then you could create separate headers (or what not) for each 
parameter name/value pair, but that would be in conflict with the 
understanding that the syntax details of query parts are essentially 
between the client application and the server.

> same with fragments (#) although I thought these weren't allowed on the
> wire...

Yes, the aren't sent.

> In fact the concept of a single string which is a URI could be
> deprecated for 2.0 and just be sent as individual fields in a request.

For some cases, such as chopping off the query part, that might work and 
be a good idea (e.g. for privacy reasons as Poul-Henning notes in a 
followup), but in general, it's a slippery slope, and it may be really 
difficult to get rid of escaping altogether.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 08:00:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 August 2012 08:00:32 GMT