[Web-SIG] WSGI 2.0 Round 2: requirements and call for interest

[Cory Benfield]

> On 6 Jan 2016, at 09:19, Aymeric Augustin <aymeric.augustin at 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.

Cory

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/attachments/20160106/2edfb086/attachment.sig>