On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> > wrote: > > On 2013-02-10 23:45, Nico Williams wrote: > >> My proposal: > >> > >> - All text values in HTTP/2.0 that are also present in HTTP/1.1 > >> should be sent as either UTF-8 or ISO8859-1, with a one-bit tag to > >> indicate which it is. > >> ... > > > > Why do we need two options? > > We probably don't. The idea was that if you have a client and server > speaking HTTP/1.1 and using ISO8559-1 (including non-ASCII > codepoints), *and* HTTP/2.0 proxies were involved that wanted to > rewrite the HTTP/1.1 as 2.0, well, they could do it and avoid > re-encoding those ISO8859-1 strings. Probably not worth it; better go > with UTF-8 alone, period. > +1 I can't see a good reason why a HTTP2 proxy would not speak HTTP/1.1 for a long time to come. If it is rewriting requests as HTTP2 then it probably has a reason for doing so that would make UTF8 desirable as well. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 15:58:08 UTC