Re: Rechartering HTTPbis

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Mon, 06 February 2012 06:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 B703A21F851C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:30:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.680, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YK8J6MjYXEqu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0D521F851B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Feb 2012 22:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RuI4e-0006gO-En for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:29:12 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1RuI4J-0006dk-Qz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:28:52 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by aji.keio.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1RuI4F-0000te-2P for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:28:50 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q166S87Q017395; Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:28:08 +0100
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:28:08 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120206062808.GH8334@1wt.eu>
References: <4429D3C2-9696-4110-B5BE-60DFB8A3101F@mnot.net> <4F1E72E0.70905@gmx.de> <EC463243-A3B0-4E35-BE92-95B35F3DE067@mnot.net> <20120128000447.GC22945@1wt.eu> <79AE838C-DA8E-4A22-954E-97D12D1B3BA4@mnot.net> <20120128002233.GD22945@1wt.eu> <B2E04CF8-E2A3-476B-A601-CCB324812CE1@mnot.net> <20120128064900.GE22945@1wt.eu> <4F23AE3F.3030004@gmx.de> <1328500916.16728.123.camel@home.henriknordstrom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1328500916.16728.123.camel@home.henriknordstrom.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by 1wt.eu id q166S8Hl032633
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1RuI4F-0000te-2P 7a48614dc5f3596ca3a585f3c70ff4c5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Rechartering HTTPbis
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120206062808.GH8334@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12323
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RuI4e-0006gO-En@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:29:12 +0000

On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:01:56AM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> lör 2012-01-28 klockan 09:13 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 
> > > I would apply a lossy conversion (reverse-mapping between UTF-8 and 8859-1).
> > > So whatever fits 8859-1 would correctly be mapped, and the rest would be lost
> > > or quoted. I don't think it's that big an issue if this is a well-known
> > 
> > There is no quoting we can use, unless we define a new one...
> 
> Or we just accept that HTTP/1.1 implementations do not follow HTTP/1.1
> encoding specifications anyway for non-ascii data and simply say that
> when I18N  field values need to be gatewayed to HTTP/1.1 then send them
> as UTF-8 even if HTTP/1.1 specifications says otherwise, intentionally
> overriding HTTP/1.1 specifications.
> 
> Sure it will break some to fix some (and mainly authentication), but
> it's not really such a big deal. In the end it's about the same amount
> of breakage as today, only different and more consistent.

+1

> But it's a bad idea to open for I18N in field names.

+1. For me i18n should only appear in values. Otherwise we'll be dealing
with a big new can of worms caused by UTF-8 to anything conversion (eg:
multiple ways to write "Content-Length" because you can have a number of
UTF-8 hyphens which translate into "-").

Regards,
Willy