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

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

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:06:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd=7wE-_ucyULsHDU4iyTyOTFNFtUiV=tajURSJStpWUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>
>>> It doesn't buy the protocol itself much. But it buys the users of the
>>>
>> protocol a lot.
>>
>> Which users? I'm having a hard time imagining why metadata has to be
>> utf-8.
>>
>>
> names: File names, user names, country names, domain names, protocol
> names, User-Agent: names, Server: names, Accept-* names, type names ...
> metadata is chock full of names when you start looking at it closely. And
> "for some strange reason" people around the world insist on being able to
> send/receive them in different languages and non-American spellings nowdays.


I think that allowing something used for names where the character set was
not constrained and whose visual representation is not always defined and
often ambiguous for names where being able to tell uniqueness is an
important security property was a royally stupid decision. Frankly, I could
care less if names were represented in chinese characters, egyption
pictographs, or what have you so long as they're unambiguous.

In any case, that ship has sailed.
I think you have a convincing argument... it still "smells" wrong to me,
and I'll attempt to ponder why. If I don't come up with anything, I won't
argue against it :)

-=R
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 00:07:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 August 2012 00:07:10 GMT