Re: XHR LC comment: header encoding

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:49:55 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote:
>> Apart from the obvious worry of switching away from a behavior that 
>> the vast majority of UAs currently implement, with the ensuing 
>> potential for website breakage, sounds fine...
> I know... Though Opera not having received bug reports so far on this 
> issue gives me some hope, since we have received lots of other bug 
> reports on far more minor details starting very early on.
> The editor drafts of XHR1 and XHR2 now include the change. This also 
> moved things away from being defined in Unicode to a combination of 
> bytes and ASCII. Please let me know if you (i.e. anyone reading this 
> thread) have any editorial suggestions on my changes or if I missed 
> something while making the edits.
> Specifically search for "inflate" and "deflate" throughout the drafts:
> ...

I've got a question. You know have several parts where you say something 

"If any code point in method is higher than U+00FF LATIN SMALL LETTER Y 
WITH DIAERESIS or after deflating method it does not match the Method 
token production raise a SYNTAX_ERR exception and terminate these steps."

a) the part about > U+00FF seems to be redundant with the requirement 
for deflate not to loose information, and

b) as "Method token" (actually "token" in HTTP/1.1) does not allow 
non-ASCII characters anyway, it appears to be much simpler to just 
require conformance to that ABNF.

So this is probably correct, but appears to be way too verbose to me...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 15:07:36 UTC