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

Re: HTTP/2 Header Encoding Status Update

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:11:37 +0900
Message-ID: <512F1139.9020307@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 February 2013 08:12:19 GMT