Re: PROPOSAL: i74: Encoding for non-ASCII headers

Thanks for the input.

Many (but not all) of those have some amount of dependency upon i109.  
I've been writing a straw-man proposal for it in the background, and  
should post it soon (please don't let that stop you if you have ideas).

I don't know that I agree we'll have to declae so many implementations  
as wrong, but let's see where we go.

Cheers,


On 08/04/2008, at 1:51 AM, Brian Smith wrote:

> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> I want to make progress -- whether on this issue or others doesn't
>> matter much. If you have suggestions for doing so -- such as you've
>> given below -- they're very welcome. In particular, if there are
>> issues that you (or anyone else) think we'd profit from focusing on,
>> I'd love to hear it; I've repeatedly asked for input on this, and
>> haven't received much.
>
> I am really interested in seeing how the issues with conditional
> requests on content-negotiated resources will get resolved (i22, i37,
> i38, i39, i58, i69, i71, i89, i101, i107, i109, i110). Content
> negotiation is being used everywhere (Vary: Content-Encoding), but  
> ETags
> for content-negotiated resources are not processed uniformly in  
> existing
> implementations. In particular, ETag handling for mod_deflate varies
> considerably even between some minor ("bug-fix") updates of Apache. As
> more applications start using conditional requests (especially PUT),
> these differences make interoperability difficult. In order to resolve
> these issues, it looks like the WG will have to declare that many  
> (most?
> all?) deployed implementations are wrong. It is a bad idea to defer
> these issues any longer because they are important but probably
> contentious; resolving these issues would be a good test to see if a
> HTTPbis will be able to move forward on a reasonable schedule.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 00:14:30 UTC