- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 10:24:15 +0000
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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 <51176C95.1040308@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes: >> 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... > >1) Filenames in Content-Disposition These only have meaning to the ultimate destinations, and if their filesystems don't support UTF-8, they'll have to do $something anyway. Nobody in the HTTP/2 protocol-chain can do anything but treat this as an opaque bytestring. >2) non-ASCII characters in HTTP auth credentials Same. >3) title parameters in Link header fields Same. The UTF-8 Questions imply does not apply at the protocol layer, it only applies to the semantic interpretation at the ends of the HTTP/2 protocol connection. Or to put it more precisely: I can see no place where an HTTP/2 intermediate without a semantic role will ever need to know about normalizing UTF-8 strings. Agree ? Since we, presumably, split HTTP into a transport and semantic part in HTTPbis, and since HTTP/2 is not supposed to change the semantics, why are we even discussing "UTF-8 in HTTP/2" ? -- 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 10:24:38 UTC