- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 22:41:44 +0100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 02.12.2022 20:18, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > Roy T. Fielding writes: > >> FWIW, there is nothing technical preventing a requirement that sf fields >> support UTF-8 by default. > > (... provided they are somehow escaped into USASCII visibility.) > > Yes, and I have absolutely no problem with SF being used to transport > UTF-8, X.509, BJSON or LU6.2 that way, that is literally why I put > sf-binary in: To make it easy for people to move /any/ binary data, > but at the same time trying to stop them from inventing their own > obscure escaping mechanisms. > > But none of the data SF serializes or parses have /semantic/ meaning > at the layer in the cake where SF lives, and that is not by accident: > > For me it was an explicit design goal, that SF would be totally > unaware of Code-Tables, UniCode, Mime, Country-codes, TLDs, Timezones > and all other time-variant registries of human policy or fashion. > ... So why are revising the spec then to add sf-date??? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 December 2022 21:42:08 UTC