- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:38:13 +0900
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2014/12/11 21:46, Henri Sivonen wrote: > It seems to me that there is a pattern that people find the theory of > forward proxies architecturally appealing and then try to find use > cases that fit the architecture. The previous hobbyhorse of this kind > was "transcoding proxies". No one had really seen one (*reverse* > proxies and origin servers don't count) or had a personal need for one > but they were believed to exist Over There in Russia and it was > supposedly important to design protocols and formats to cater to them > (even though the more reasonable protocol design choice was for > everyone to use UTF-8 and not transcode anything--and even failing > that, browsers have built-in support for a whole bunch of Cyrillic > legacy encodings, so there is no need for intermediaries to transcode > anyway). People making this argument weren't themselves from Russia, > of course. Hence, "Over There". I can confirm that transcoding proxies existed in Japan, but that was a long, long time ago (probably about 20 years). Of course UTF-8 is a much better choice. Transcoding proxies were never a preferred choice, just a necessary evil at some point in time. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 06:38:45 UTC