W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Delta Compression and UTF-8 Header Values

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:44:46 +0100
Message-ID: <51176C0E.5000202@gmx.de>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-08 20:44, James M Snell wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> --------
>> In message <CABP7RbfRLXPpL4=wip=FvqD3DM7BM8PXi7uRswHAusXUmPO_xw@mail.gmail.com>
>> , James M Snell writes:
>>> So the question is: do we want to allow UTF-8 header values?
>> Jim Gettys famously laid down some principles for X11 development,
>> number 1 and 3 of which are:
>>          1.Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot
>>            complete a real application without it.
>>          3.The only thing worse than generalizing from one example
>>            is generalizing from no examples at all.
>> Do we have two examples of what it is that somebody cannot do (in a
>> reasonable way?) without UTF-8 header values ?
> AFAIC, the main motivation for allowing UTF-8 headers is to reduce
> (and *eventually* eliminate) the need for
> punycode/pct-encoding/B-codec/Q-codec/RFC5987.
> This is not so much a question of enabling a use case that cannot be
> "resonably" done without UTF-8 headers. Rather, it's a question of
> simplifying things for developers by reducing existing complexity (by
> moving that complexity into the protocol).
> - James


But note than in practice, B-codec and Q-codec aren't used.

That still leaves us with the other schemes.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 09:45:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 February 2013 09:45:16 GMT