W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2022

Re: support for non-ASCII in strings, was: signatures vs sf-date

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 11:32:24 +0000
Message-Id: <202212021132.2B2BWOLd005388@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke writes:

> Well, it was not me who added the new encoding to the Problem field spec.

See other email.

> > I cannot see any way we "need to support strings [...]" on top of that,
> > and I am a big beliver in Gettys rules of design:
> >
> > 	1. Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot
> > 	   complete a real application without it.
> So why are we adding sf-date then? Why do we actually work on a revision
> at all?

Because sf-date can be a significant performance improvement.

> > 	2. It is as important to decide what a system is not as to
> > 	   decide what it is. Do not serve all the world's needs;
> > 	   rather, make the system extensible so that additional
> > 	   needs can be met in an upwardly compatible fashion.
> If that leads to multiple, non-interoperable solutions for the same
> problem: no.

See other email.

> > 	3. The only thing worse than generalizing from one example is
> >             generalizing from no examples at all.  (Phil Karlton)
> I don't get how that applies here.

I found it silly to site only two of the three rules.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 11:32:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 1 February 2023 02:18:31 UTC