- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 13:52:18 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-------- Mark Nottingham writes: > Personally -- > > *If* we think we're going to ship Display Strings and can agree to do > so, I'd prefer to do it in this revision, rather than having a third > revision of Structured Fields. I almost agree, only I think it is better to put a stop to this horrible idea once and for all, rather than kick the can down the road. As for consensus: I am firmly against. With reference to: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/2494#issuecomment-1491512304 1. sf-binary already does everything this proposal claims to do, only better & safer. 2. I have still not seen a non-speculative use-case where this is beneficial. 3. "HTTP is the new TCP" and just we never added I18N to TCP headers, we should never do it to HTTP fields either, because it is the wrong protocol layer for it. 4. The escape rules are inconsistent: % -> %25 " -> \" \ -> \\ 5. There is no negotiation mechanism for the necessary cultural (p)reference. and so on... No, just NO! Poul-Henning -- 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 Sunday, 30 April 2023 13:52:26 UTC