- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:28:27 +0000
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 -------- In message <511726A5.5030302@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D= FCrst=22?= writes: >While we are on a sideline, I'd hope you could have a close look at the >above line. I'm not sure what kind of mail user agent you're using, I'm using a pretty antique "nmh", and some decade I'll upgrade to something which might or might not work better. >Just to make sure you don't misunderstand me, this is not about me and >my name, but about about basic understanding for people who can't get by >with just ASCII. I'm Danish, I know full well that ASCII isn't enough for people. But protocols are not people, and while the are used to move the communications of people, and therefore should be able to _move_ unicode, there is seldom, if ever, need nor advantage to pollute the mechanics of the protocol with unicode. This is why I keep asking people where _exactly_ it is they want the unicode to go in the HTTP/2 protocol. So far I fail to detect a clear answer... -- 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 Sunday, 10 February 2013 09:28:51 UTC