IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: If not JSON, what then ?

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Mon, 01 August 2016 11:19 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 A322B12D73B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, 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 RZtSIbCNzKRX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
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 463A412B025 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bUBCQ-0004Rb-6K for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:15:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:15:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bUBCQ-0004Rb-6K@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1bUBCL-0004Qq-9c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:15:53 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1bUBCA-0008WI-VS for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:15:51 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2088273AC; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u71B1LQ8054616; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:01:22 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
In-reply-to: <20160801104405.GA22799@1wt.eu>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <77778.1470037414@critter.freebsd.dk> <20160801085743.GB22715@1wt.eu> <84604.1470045445@critter.freebsd.dk> <20160801104405.GA22799@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <54614.1470049281.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:01:21 +0000
Message-ID: <54615.1470049281@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.819, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.245, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bUBCA-0008WI-VS f4ecf10e211540041b06250d95689e35
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: If not JSON, what then ?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/54615.1470049281@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32115
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>

--------
In message <20160801104405.GA22799@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:

>> My take is that the data-model and serialization should be general
>> and unconstrained, and the constraints be applied in a/the schema
>> for each individual header.
>
>But we're talking about protocol efficiency as well, which passes via
>taking into account what we have. We could for example consider the
>notion of "extended strings" which are only used for header fields
>which are not relevant to the protocol itself (eg: not used in
>accept/range/connection/...) and which would allow unicode to be
>safely transmitted. It might be used for user-agent if needed.

Unicode can already be safely transmitted as UTF-8, problem is that
people don't know if it is UTF-8 or ISO8859.

The "\U" prefix/escape would solve that efficiently.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email