- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:08:04 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 28/01/2012 1:40 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message<EC463243-A3B0-4E35-BE92-95B35F3DE067@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri > tes: > >>> Re HTTP/next: it would be good to collect a list of things we think we = >> should make progress on; not surprisingly, I'd nominate I18N for header = >> field values. >> >> So, that's an interesting question. > I18N in transport headers: Forget it, it would kill performance if > done right, and do nobody any good if not. > > I18N in content headers: Sure, be my guest. > > Skipping over I18N and its multiple charsets and going specifically to UTF-8 representation of the existing header could be an option though. We already have a set of well defined transport headers with defined ASCII/UTF-8 interchangeable characters. New headers will have to consider whether they exist only on HTTP/2 links or also apply to HTTP/1 links and choose relevant naming characters based on that. Transport being hop-by-hop this is a choice they can make safely. The message and entity meta headers which cross hops is where the problems occur by the bucket full. I somehow doubt it would be a good idea to make two distinct header formats, but who knows. AYJ
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 02:08:51 UTC