- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:59:31 -0800
- To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>, Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.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 16 January 2014 10:48, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> wrote: > However, iff an HTTP/2.0 client knows for sure the encoding (e.g., UTF-8), per the proposal it could indicate it so at the receiving side there are no guessing games: in the presence of such an explicit indication, either it is valid UTF-8, or it is an error, no further processing is done. What you are proposing, perhaps, is that HTTP/2.0 support the carriage of IRIs. Noting that this is effectively what browsers and HTML already do, perhaps that's not a terrible thing. Would this apply to just :path, or would you extend this to :authority and allow IDNs there? That does mean that the proxy/server is potentially exposed to unicode normalization rules and so forth.
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 18:59:59 UTC