- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:44:46 +0100
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-08 20:44, James M Snell wrote: > 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 Indeed. But note than in practice, B-codec and Q-codec aren't used. That still leaves us with the other schemes. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 09:45:14 UTC