- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:11:37 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hello Julian, On 2013/02/28 16:27, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2013-02-28 00:00, James M Snell wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> [snip] >> Yes, I think that is reasonable. One key thing is that existing >> headers would need to be explicitly redefined to take advantage of the >> new encoding options so it would be technically invalid to take any of >> the existing headers and encode them as UTF-8 unless their definition >> has been changed in spec. That said, a standard mapping like you >> suggest would be good in the cases we do have to drop down from http/2 >> to /1. Percent-encoding seems to be perfectly reasonable. >> ... > > That's not going to work for existing header fields and existing code on > HTTP/1.1. > > This is a hairy problem. If it wasn't, we would already have solved it. Can you give actual examples? Regards, Martin.
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 08:12:17 UTC