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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 12:36:08 +0100
Message-ID: <2f17b414-8074-7223-84de-3d75ffee120e@gmx.de>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 02.12.2022 12:32, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> 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.

Over an integer? Please elaborate. I see one additional case to
consider, and another character to skip.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 11:36:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:44:08 UTC