- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 21:17:48 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 21/03/2014 8:43 p.m., Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Ven 21 mars 2014 05:36, Mark Nottingham a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
>> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
+1.
Amos
Received on Friday, 21 March 2014 08:18:19 UTC