W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00, unicode range

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:15:28 +0100
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
Cc: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
Message-ID: <c360d5bc-d22d-278e-952b-1fad78f73c44@gmx.de>
On 2016-12-13 22:43, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <20161213175419.GA7943@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>, Ilari Li
> usvaara writes:
>
>>> 3.  HTTP/1 Serialization of HTTP Header Common Structure
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00#section-3
>
>
>> Well, that production lists UTF8-4, which is presumably 4-byte UTF-8
>> sequences, and all valid ones are astral plane codepoints.
>
> My impression was that UTF8 and 8-bit clean HTTP/1 got shot down
> in previous discussions, but I left UTF8 here for now, pending a
> more structured decision making on this.
>
> I see us having four options, in my order of preference:
>
> 1) Forbid Unicode in headers.
>
> 2) Take UTF8 out and leave all (non-ASCII) unicode to the \uxxxx
>    escape mechanism.
>
> 3) Leave UTF8 in, and make it clear that it may or may not work, so
>    that people can use it in controlled environments.
>
> 4) Leave UTF8 in, and specify how to indicate/negotiate if it can be used.
>
>> astral planes (and I hope the escape system there would be more sane
>> than the one JSON has...)
>
> Any suggestions ?

3) seems like the right choice to me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 10:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 December 2016 10:16:33 UTC