- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:22:20 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-02-28 09:11, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > Hello Julian, > > On 2013/02/28 16:27, Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-02-28 00:00, James M Snell wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>>> Hi James, >>>> >>>> [snip] > >>> Yes, I think that is reasonable. One key thing is that existing >>> headers would need to be explicitly redefined to take advantage of the >>> new encoding options so it would be technically invalid to take any of >>> the existing headers and encode them as UTF-8 unless their definition >>> has been changed in spec. That said, a standard mapping like you >>> suggest would be good in the cases we do have to drop down from http/2 >>> to /1. Percent-encoding seems to be perfectly reasonable. >>> ... >> >> That's not going to work for existing header fields and existing code on >> HTTP/1.1. >> >> This is a hairy problem. If it wasn't, we would already have solved it. > > Can you give actual examples? Non-ASCII characters in Content-Disposition's filename parameter; sometimes decoded as UTF-8, sometimes as ISO-8859-1, sometimes based on the referring page's encoding, sometimes using the browser's default locale. Whatever you choose here *will* break some UAs. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 08:22:54 UTC