- From: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:52:05 -0700
- To: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAPAK-5t6WBcAJ8rUb_+T=SuHqA=Hjg2dpMfBKYgikNCEqtJ5g@mail.gmail.com>
Besides entities, there is the pickle goal between HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2. On Friday, August 3, 2012, Mike Belshe wrote: > One of the charter requirements of HTTP/2, I thought, was interop to > HTTP/1.1 servers. > > If so, how would we pass UTF8 headers to HTTP/1.1 servers? > > If we can't then we don't need to support them, right? > > Mike > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'dzonatas@gmail.com');> > > wrote: > >> ASCII is not "trivially UTF8." UTF8 lacks the available flow control of >> ASCII. Any conversion between ASCII and EBCDIC is best done in hardware. We >> already know the security issue of conversions from unicode to EBCDIC, and >> I doubt that is something we can scheme here on on-topic. >> >> >> On Friday, August 3, 2012, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> >>> On 2012/08/02 17:27, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> >>>> In message< >>>> CABaLYCv7U7iLBu5+8Nb9Wa1VeQguoMLJw4VOCbDBQK3WoE-sFg@mail.gmail.com> >>>> , Mike Belshe writes: >>>> >>>> * I don't think we need utf-8 encoded headers. Not sure how you'd pass >>>>>>> >>>>>> them off to HTTP anyway? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I just don't see any problem being solved by adding this? If there is >>>>> no >>>>> benefit, we should not do it, right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> If this would solve any major problems inside a 20 year horizon, we >>>> should do it. >>>> >>> >>> It will solve quite a few problems, some of them major, maybe not for >>> HTTP itself, but for the applications on top. It will actually solve some >>> problems that have been around for at least the last 15 years. >>> >>> HTML and HTTP were created when the breakthrough of iso-8859-1 (Latin-1) >>> in Western Europe was predictable (the nascent Web helped to unify the >>> Western Europe 'national' 7-bit and 8-bit encodings quite a bit). >>> >>> At least as early as 1995 (RFC 2070) or 1996 (RFC 2130, RFC 2277), it >>> was clear to those concerned that Unicode and UTF-8 was the way of the >>> future. As everybody should be able to confirm when thinking about >>> US-ASCII, using a single character encoding (rather than e.g. ASCII and >>> EBCDIC or some such alternatively) brings HUGE benefits. The same is true >>> when streamlining from a zoo of character encodings to UTF-8. >>> >>> These days, over 60% of the Web is already in UTF-8, and if you add in >>> the 20% of pure ASCII which is trivially also UTF-8, it's 80%. All other >>> encodings are in serious decline. (see p. 52 of the July IEEE Spectrum). >>> And efforts such as HTML5 are strongly pushing to get more UTF-8. I think >>> lots of HTTP users would appreciate a better commitment from HTTP with >>> respect to character encoding in headers and the like. What's currently >>> there is really just a mess, and should be cleaned up. >>> >>> >>> Regards, Martin. >>> >>> >
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 15:52:32 UTC