- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:08:13 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-07-17 09:59, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <50051A91.1010401@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >> On 2012-07-17 09:44, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >>> ... >>> But a much, much better solution in this day and age is to only allow >>> one encoding, UTF-8. That by definition includes US-ASCII, covers all >>> the world's characters, and is what HTML is moving towards (with quite >>> surprising speed these days). And while in HTML (and other content >>> formats), non-ASCII is extremely widespread, in HTTP, it is not, and >>> having more than one encoding is needlessly complicated. >>> ... >> >> *If* we make a breaking change with respect to character encoding >> schemes, this is indeed the change to make. > > Indeed, and a change I think HTTP/2.0 should make, in light of a > 20 year design lifetime. As far as I can tell, the only thing that makes this hard is the desire to be able to tunnel arbitrary HTTP/1.1 through HTTP/2.0. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 08:19:00 UTC