- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:29:13 +1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
[ "just me" hat on ] <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/227> After some discussion in Berlin and Stockholm, as well as experience with dealing with i18n in parameters for the Link header (see <https://github.com/mnot/I-D/issues/180>), I think we should give more definite advice about when RFC5987(bis) encoding should and should not be used. In particular, flagging encoding by using a parameter name complicates extension processing (see the issue referenced above), and causes a lot of uncertainty about precedence, etc. I think it would be much simpler and more reliable to advise people minting new HTTP headers to *not* use RFC5987(bis) encoding, but instead advise that they mandate use of an encoding on the field (or a specified portion thereof). E.g., if the "foo" parameter on the "bar" header field might need to accept non-ascii content, it MUST be generated with those characters encoded, and MUST be parsed by first decoding that portion of the header. The actual encoding to be used need not be specified, but the simplest approach would probably be to use RFC3986 %-encoding over a UTF-8 string. A more aggressive approach would be to also recommend that new parameters on existing fields (even if they specify use of 5987) SHOULD use such encoding. Thoughts? I'm not going to lie down in the road for this, in that I suspect that most people will gravitate towards this kind of solution naturally, rather than use 5987, but it'd be nice to put clear advice out there. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2016 02:29:42 UTC