- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:20:31 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 02.08.2012 07:51, James M Snell wrote: > > On Aug 1, 2012 8:30 PM, "Mike Belshe" <mike@ > <mailto:mike@belshe.com>belshe.com <mailto:mike@belshe.com>> 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