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

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

From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:04:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqHj2tx_MDeg6rjncrCdzc61tRC8TJVbhgJe4KDmu=1vvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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>
Wait... why should HTTP care about the internal structure of a URI? As
far as HTTP is concerned, a URI is an opaque string(though
canonicalization needs to be defined)

The internal structure of a URI is agreed upon by the client app and
the server app. For example, the common ?n1=v1&n2=v2 form is actually
defined by the HTML standard; the way n/v's are escaped is also
defined by HTML. HTTP has no business in it.

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/interact/forms.html#h-17.13.4.1

Zhong YU


On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
> To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
> Cc: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>;"Mike Belshe"
> <mike@belshe.com>;"ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 3/08/2012 4:35:00 p.m.
> Subject: Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY
>>
>> On 2012/08/03 2:48, James M Snell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Poul-Henning
>>> Kamp<phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> For instance, could we get rid of the %-encoding of URIs by allowing
>>>> UTF8 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> It would be possible, for instance, to begin using IRI's directly without
>>> translating those to URI's first.
>>
>>
>> Great idea. Please note that that will also save a few bytes (but that's
>> definitely not the main reason for doing it).
>>>
>>> Doing so, however, does not eliminate the need for %-encoding,
>>
>>
>> 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 '?'
>
> same with fragments (#) although I thought these weren't allowed on the
> wire...
>
> 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.
>
> gatewaying back to 1.1 would require assembling a URI from the pieces, but
> that should be easy.
> Seems a bit nuts to go binary and leave some parts as overloaded string
> fields requiring string parsing and escaping.
>
> Adrien
>
>
>>
>>
>>> and there are a range of possible issues that could make this
>>> problematic.
>>
>>
>> Could you list up the issues you're thinking about? (I don't want to say
>> there are none, but I can't at the moment come up with something that
>> wouldn't already be around currently.)
>> Regards, Martin.
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 17:04:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 August 2012 17:04:40 GMT