- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:50:40 +0000
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <CABP7Rbd7bck4czG9c84hLeAHMnbeqb1mYhS+-DKKtZYEyia=6A@mail.gmail.com> , James M Snell writes: >On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >>>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. >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. I guess the relevant question then is: Are these headers where it is necessary for HTTP entities to understand the value (ie: "Cache-Control", "Location" etc, ) or headers which are just transported transparently from end to end ("X-FOObar", "Cookie" etc.) In the latter case, supporting UTF-8 is merely a matter of letting another bit through per byte, in the former case it opens a major bucket of worms IMO. -- 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 19:51:02 UTC