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

Re: Unicode sucks, get over it (Re: Delta Compression and UTF-8 Header Values)

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:56:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhVgCvBTYsQZALAveh4gD873Sb+Lz1YV_gksWzoRLikPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > On 2013-02-10 23:45, Nico Williams wrote:
> >> My proposal:
> >>
> >>   - All text values in HTTP/2.0 that are also present in HTTP/1.1
> >> should be sent as either UTF-8 or ISO8859-1, with a one-bit tag to
> >> indicate which it is.
> >> ...
> >
> > Why do we need two options?
>
> We probably don't.  The idea was that if you have a client and server
> speaking HTTP/1.1 and using ISO8559-1 (including non-ASCII
> codepoints), *and* HTTP/2.0 proxies were involved that wanted to
> rewrite the HTTP/1.1 as 2.0, well, they could do it and avoid
> re-encoding those ISO8859-1 strings.  Probably not worth it; better go
> with UTF-8 alone, period.
>

+1

I can't see a good reason why a HTTP2 proxy would not speak HTTP/1.1 for a
long time to come. If it is rewriting requests as HTTP2 then it probably
has a reason for doing so that would make UTF8 desirable as well.


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 15:58:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 11 February 2013 15:58:15 GMT