Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param"

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 30 January 2012 13:30 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 40D9521F8613 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:30:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.704
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8x2=0.246]
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 64OroqzyIF87 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86A7321F860F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 05:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RrrI9-0005vN-72 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:29:05 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1RrrHx-0005u6-OZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:28:53 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by aji.keio.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1RrrHs-0000so-Aj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:28:52 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2012 13:28:13 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp036) with SMTP; 30 Jan 2012 14:28:13 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/OeC9vcL3OHLu4mdy3wqBKyak3pemqlz1Fzhcs6s lTsWLUjwc6NYho
Message-ID: <4F269AE9.7010000@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:28:09 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexei Khlebnikov <alexei.khlebnikov@opera.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <op.v8wcktoyockn2m@alexeik-desktop.oslo.osa>
In-Reply-To: <op.v8wcktoyockn2m@alexeik-desktop.oslo.osa>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1RrrHs-0000so-Aj 17f048afae7b471ebcedd379713a55ff
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: feedback on draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04, "3. The 'encoding' auth-param"
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F269AE9.7010000@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12261
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: <E1RrrI9-0005vN-72@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:29:05 +0000

On 2012-01-30 13:20, Alexei Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My feedback on
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-basicauth-enc-04.html#encoding>:
>
>
> Was it considered to name the new parameter "charset" instead of
> "encoding"?

No, I didn't think of that.

> I can see the following advantages of "charset":
>
> 1) "Charset" is unambigous. "Encoding" is ambigous, it can refer to many
> things: base64, quoted-printable, chunked-coding, gzip-compression, etc.

Well, as Björn says, charset is is ambiguous as well; the correct term 
here would be "character encoding scheme", but there's also the aspect 
of brevity.

> 2) "Charset" is already used in the HTTP protocol, so it is good to use
> the same word for consistency:
>
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

I'd agree if this was exactly the same use case...

That being said, I'm happy to do what the majority thinks is best.

Best regards, Julian