> On 6 Jan 2016, at 09:19, Aymeric Augustin 
> <aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> Hello Benoît,
> Thanks for clarifying that you also had the reverse problem in mind, headers 
> sent by applications. This side is less problematic in the sense that 
> application authors can adapt to stronger requirements.
> In general this is a bit of a mess due to differences between what the RFC 
> 2616 says and what browsers do in practice. That’s why I believe the 
> pragmatic solution is to exchange bytes. (This isn’t a major issue in the 
> grand scheme of things anyway.)
> Best regards,

Folks, just a reminder: RFC 2616 is dead. RFC 7230 says that *newly defined* 
header fields should limit their field values to US-ASCII, but older header 
fields are a crapshoot (though it notes that “in practice, most” header field 
values use US-ASCII).

Regardless, it seems to me that the correct method of communicating field 
values would have been byte strings.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Web-SIG mailing list
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig

Reply via email to