Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY

On 02.08.2012 07:51, James M Snell wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2012 8:30 PM, "Mike Belshe" <mike@
> <> <>> wrote:
>  >
>  > A couple of thoughts:
>  >
>  > * Thanks for writing up!
>  >
>  > * I don't think we need utf-8 encoded headers.  Not sure how you'd
> pass them off to HTTP anyway?
>  >
> The hand off to http 1.1 could be problematic, yes and I'm not 100% sold
> on the utf-8 thing yet either. It's not an impossible problem tho and
> shouldn't be too much of a challenge since most of the existing header
> value definitions would likely not be modified... that is, just because
> utf-8 is allowed in general doesn't mean that the existing value
> definitions would all automatically be changed to allow for all possible
> utf-8 characters.
 > ...

I believe solving the header field encoding problem would be great; in 
particular with some people trying to move all metadata into header fields.

As far as I can tell, the only widely used header field that *does* 
require non-ASCII is Content-Disposition, for which a non-lossy 
transformation is available (see 5987/6266), although some older UAs do 
not get that.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 10:21:33 UTC