Re: RFC 5987bis WG last call - naming the encoding

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 November 2016 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955891294F4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:42:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Ha0KcEBO-6P for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8A72129455 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:42:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c7WGI-0003Cs-17 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:38:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:38:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c7WGI-0003Cs-17@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1c7WGB-0003AQ-NG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:38:27 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1c7WG4-0007HU-KZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:38:22 +0000
Received: from [31.133.147.187] ([31.133.147.187]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx003 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MQyxa-1cCUJk3q2w-00UNUE; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:37:51 +0100
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <b65d5148-29f0-5e8b-9375-590ca8e52357@gmx.de> <7331.1479425212@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <4e2612c7-557b-0bea-c78b-8272c92db8ed@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:37:47 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7331.1479425212@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:HbUzQDzPymLej8Ni74Lc4r8/BlmKC5EJQeJV7v0tkYOPaOGBCRB Fuv0+K7478e9lYdfZaQ1XqSRMwhR9TggZ/UsTWm9PRFMgZ/FlZb3vRuhEnD4x2SGEmQQ17+ ZgUiAgkUZAgMxnd14EcNyfTsDFxUtHB7+/e2SihNTgKXugJgiz88VdU5CkXKrfWIT9BsGVM IZXvDqPbge4XxpFU7ARzQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:couknRfyKmc=:Lgt+0QhD4e2iVWsURkNNaG TclWJiaObqb6exHsY19w9lKusj2SPElAcF0BajZp/WyOlKdhvET4W9Q++T9cO4d5WTda117kR jVkX+1VPzcezMzwGwtbXU7GsSWh2YfPSv2DbgaTC8pp+k4Q77nj3X7mnVr7g7lObhbko8wHC5 5xs54PeeGTyUASuZzUU8i33UVS1B9asu1p6jAA0QiIrVw+GhCJ/Cw2HXaGfHphrxmG6DFb0Bx tOrBiynyIIw0o253/oCtQU8ItdR2iFYt8BoUbuyUh3t3AnK0NTwIY2YxBJPPmM7Lc24SMW5Se Fu8Vw2Zt4X5XV6fmwqeXvR4wf/FcYlB13HGSoZKknExadvq2zmxvrNl8BzcQbvOup6pv2JUne oHA9sN8pQtDRI4IhI3t0HwrZFWRnv/UH4fT6fHvcs0kcbckqN+u7oApjcgKxz63vtBCBEkE5G x3cl5802EjZ6a2sGRP5TkDRfu3qSAN6mRTNxzo0n0aexne2kYl5cti8VThd3smUVmovF24/dt AAZJnkeJ/jkjfZ4uWU84ehAklfx8ti7gVdOcdROGfZ5xo8R/JJiNHGjNtlR1GJHdhjai0UVFr LN/whdMFz/ZSKRzuHwrm+df/D9/Nnb/pkM359t2hFp/RBhmtMoDHwog7nHs1b9sVmg2f9KDEj 1qkV6x80ilNpdOFI7X55dLC5rlvtghYE4JR6xEGEAgXvDxvmWE5m3cAkQ9vy+gbdoHV1efCue YF6Rm0XlNRy/9+VXMtx7dxuM4LDJetAswMB6O4ZnxtB6l8tothLtPCtmOhsen/RuqP9avB8wM bYx1iO1
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1c7WG4-0007HU-KZ 0f410748e1d48133c0e8ea53dd5c9bda
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: RFC 5987bis WG last call - naming the encoding
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4e2612c7-557b-0bea-c78b-8272c92db8ed@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32932
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2016-11-18 00:26, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> --------
> In message <b65d5148-29f0-5e8b-9375-590ca8e52357@gmx.de>de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>
>> I got some great feedback from one of our chairs who checked how this
>> impacts *his* work on RFC 5988bis (which refers to RFC 5987) -- see
>> <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/267>.
>
> So, silly question time...
>
> The stuff in RFC5987bis overlaps but is incompatible with the
> utf8-string in the "common structure" draft I've written.
>
> We should spend a moment deciding what to do about that.
>
> RFC5987bis is more general, in the sense that you can specify any
> character set you want, including BAUDOT and EBCDIC, whereas CS
> only makes room for utf8.

That's a leftover from where it originated. It only requires support for 
UTF-8, so that's the only thing you can reliably send.

> CS can adopt the RFC5987 charset tagging, and instead of utf8_string
> have a general "non-ascii-string"
>
> RFC5987bis also allows you to specify an optional language,
> CS can obviously adopt that too.

I wouldn't go there.

> But now that I actually look at it, I have at least
> three questions about it:
>
> First:  The RFC5987bis draft doesn't mention the Accept-Language
>         header with a single word.  If the client says it
> 	only understands elbonian, we shouldn't send it hungarian
> 	strings in HTTP-headers ?

That is true, but it really doesn't need to be stated here. It would be 
just advice anyway, right?

> Second: Should we also make the charset optional, defaulting to
>         ascii, to allow people to specify only the language ?

We can't without breaking existing implementations.

> Third: Shouldn't we allow alternative languages ?
>
> In other words, should this be legal ?
>
> 	Content-Type: liquid/beverage ; \
> 		type*=utf-8'de'wei%C39Fbier ; \
> 		type*=iso8859-1'da'hvede%D8l ; \
> 		type*=''white%20beer

RFC5987bis just defines what goes into the parameter value. Everything 
else is up to the definition of the header field. See also 
<https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-rfc5987bis-03.html#rfc.section.4.p.2>.


Best regards, Julian