- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:44:44 -0800
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <CABP7RbfRLXPpL4=wip=FvqD3DM7BM8PXi7uRswHAusXUmPO_xw@mail.gmail.com> > , James M Snell writes: > >>So the question is: do we want to allow UTF-8 header values? > > Jim Gettys famously laid down some principles for X11 development, > number 1 and 3 of which are: > > 1.Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot > complete a real application without it. > > 3.The only thing worse than generalizing from one example > is generalizing from no examples at all. > > Do we have two examples of what it is that somebody cannot do (in a > reasonable way?) without UTF-8 header values ? > AFAIC, the main motivation for allowing UTF-8 headers is to reduce (and *eventually* eliminate) the need for punycode/pct-encoding/B-codec/Q-codec/RFC5987. This is not so much a question of enabling a use case that cannot be "resonably" done without UTF-8 headers. Rather, it's a question of simplifying things for developers by reducing existing complexity (by moving that complexity into the protocol). - James > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 19:45:32 UTC