- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:52:59 -0800
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcRM63pEd5tvpkMcnQwqg-3FwFv9ftWxYLrZQpw2-sCEQ@mail.gmail.com>
++ -=R On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote: > 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 19:53:27 UTC