Re: Consensus call to include Display Strings in draft-ietf-httpbis-sfbis

Mark Nottingham writes:

> That's a strong claim about my intent, and I don't appreciate it. Please 
> back it up or retract it.

Mark, that strawman argument was so far out, that I intend to waste
no more time on it.

If you dont appreciate me saying so, in so many words, then so be it.

You know, and I know, that this PR mainly exist in the vain hope
that adopting it, will finally make Julian stop harping on and on
about Unicode strings.

Comity in working groups is an important thing, but it should never
spill into the work product in the form of bad ideas.

> > I designed SF, and later you helped,
> ... and that's quite a distortion of the spec's history, but let's not 
> get distracted from the point here.

Is it now ?

I distinctly remember writing the first draft during my five hour
train ride home from the HTTP Workshop in Stockholm, but if you
have a different historical record, please enlighten us ?

> Furthermore, making the data model appealing to 
> developers matters, because it reduces barriers to adoption.

So why is it smart to invent a new additional hybrid escape mechanism,
rather than to rely on the well established widely available base64
encoding, which everybody already has well tested subroutines for ?

Because it /might/ finally shut up Julian ?

Sorry, that's not a good enough reason.


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, 26 May 2023 07:43:29 UTC