- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:08:04 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
- CC: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Matthew Cox <macox@microsoft.com>
On 2014-01-15 21:54, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <CACuKZqF0oxcpJWYnDzzVSwzeJgQ4K18gZCynyYh0uJwY=4xHtA@mail.gmail.com> > , Zhong Yu writes: > >> Can you give an example where an intermediary benefits from decoding >> URI octets into unicodes? > > Not necessarily from converting them into unicodes, but normalising > them using whatever rule we might prefer, so that cache-lookups > will always find the same object, no matter how the URI was mangled > with encodings. Why do you need more normalization than you have right now? /me confused
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 09:08:37 UTC