W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: draft-montenegro-httpbis-uri-encoding

From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:43:02 +0100
Message-ID: <4e4c31e42a0059bf33f36f1c15d0026c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Gabriel Montenegro" <gabriel.montenegro@microsoft.com>

Le Ven 21 mars 2014 05:36, Mark Nottingham a écrit :


> I've heard hallway feedback about it that wonders if we just want to allow
> one value ("UTF-8"). Beyond that, folks seem generally neutral-to-positive
> about it, AFAICT.

The draft adds constrains to network nodes that try do do the right thing,
and gives bad nodes a free ticket. So the incentive is to continue to
behave non-deterministically.

I'd much rather have: anything that pretends to talk http/2 uses UTF-8
(perhaps not even % encoded) by default, unless it specifies another
encoding in one of the two optional headers. People who try to do anything
other than utf-8 without specifying it get broken connexions when
something fails in the path, if they don't want to make the effort to be
deterministic that's their problem.

The spec can add a reserved keyword for unknown encoding (probably with
the provision network nodes MAY refuse connexions with this keyword or any
encoding value not specified in the spec).

That avoids dragging two new headers on every connexion and does not make
bad encoding the problem of people who rightly use utf-8 but on the actual
bad encoding perpetrators.


Nicolas Mailhot
Received on Friday, 21 March 2014 07:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC