- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 08:05:27 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbfSMfNJBOkqRzsqdCOJ9Yi=9ZvjEOyW7efz0OwZOzgSzw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote: > On 2012-07-17 16:48, James M Snell wrote: > >> Tunneling 1.1 traffic via 2.0 would likely be the easy part; it's the >> > > Not even that. Given an HTTP/1.1 message containing non-ASCII octets in > header field value, you simply don't know what unicode characters to map > them to. > > This is not theoretical; some UAs process UTF-8 in Content-Disposition, > some use the installation's locale character set. > > Yes, this is a mess, but it's not clear to me how to break out of it > without breaking *some* setups that currently "work". > > +1 ... there are quite a few issues that I would like to see HTTP/2.0 resolve that fall into the same issue. Some breakage will occur and I'm good with that. > ... >> >> The one thing we need to determine is: how critical is the ability to >> support seamless down-level conversion from 2.0 to 1.1 within a request? >> Is it acceptable for us to say that while 2.0 can be used to transport >> 1.1 messages, the reverse is not possible. >> ... >> > > So how do you transport a 1.1 message inside 2.0 if it contains non-ASCII? > Treat the header field value as binary? > > That's my initial thought but still noodling over it. I'm open to suggestions but really want to keep the header encoding as compact as possible. - James > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 15:06:20 UTC