- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 21:52:40 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 09:40:22PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2015-04-01 21:12, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >Hi Julian, > > > >On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 10:09:16AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > >>On 2015-03-31 22:56, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>>-------- > >>>In message <20150331182521.GF7183@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > >>> > >>>>>Third, are there *any* valid reasons to even allow other charsets > >>>>>than ISO-8859-1 or UTF-8 from 2015 forward ? > >>>> > >>>>Idem. And if we don't need to do more than that, then probably we > >>>>just need a boolean to say "this is not ISO-8859-1, hence this is > >>>>UTF-8" and make the encoding implicit by the sole presence of the > >>>>encoding tag (eg: the "*" or "=", I don't remember right now). > >>> > >>>In that case I could live with it being per field, because the > >>>signal could be a single character and we could probably > >>>dispense with the % encoding too. > >> > >>Friends, this is not a new format. It is implemented in all major user > >>agents, so it really doesn't make sense to invent a new shorter syntax > >>approximately 15 years after this has been defined first. > > > >Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware of it at all. So just for our > >understanding, could you explain in a few words what in your proposal > >differs from what already exists, or whether it standardizes something > >already used as a de-facto standard maybe ? > > The major differences would be: > > - remove ISO-8859-1 from the set of required encodings, and > > - better integration with the httpbis specs. OK thank you very much for the quick diff, that's clear to me now. Then I don't see anything to argue against from my point of view. Best regards, Willy
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 19:53:07 UTC