- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 12:21:50 -0800
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbdrKWR-rzKGh9sFXJaqqQojLCQtNknRDfCqER1Ln29FAg@mail.gmail.com>
On Feb 8, 2013 11:50 AM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: [snip] > > 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. > No argument there. However, this bucket of worms is no worse than several of the others we've already been considering :) The key headers where this becomes the most relevant are :host, :path, Content-Disposition, Link, and possibly Cookie/Set-Cookie (that's a big maybe). If nothing else, it would be helpful to have a single encoding defined for all non-ascii header field values that can be indicated by a bit flag. E.g. if the flag is set, value is hex encoded binary. It doesn't alleviate all the issues, of course, but does simplify things for app developers. > -- > 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 20:22:18 UTC