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

Re: Unicode escape sequence | Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-header-structure-00, unicode range

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 12:53:27 +0100
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, HTTP working group mailing list <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@varnish-cache.org>
Message-ID: <36d4efd6-0287-8770-b40a-89729a7c53f6@gmx.de>
On 2016-12-14 12:37, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 14 December 2016 at 21:51, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> Well, UTF-8 would also go through HPACK, but by eye-ball it seems
>> that it would be more efficient.
> If you have lots of ASCII still, you can probably Huffman encode,
> though if you have lots of non-ASCII, you need to watch out: a three
> octet UTF-8 encoded codepoint turns into (worst case) 82 bits.  Best
> case is 58 bits (both of which are invalid, so maybe not).
> I can't remember, is there actually a good reason why we can't just
> start shoving UTF-8 in header fields?  I mean, h2 is probably OK with
> this.

Some APIs assume ISO-8859-1, so unexpected things might happen (of 
course that's independent of the actual transport).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 11:55:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 14 December 2016 11:55:26 UTC