HTTP and character encodings

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li>wrote:

>
> > Yes. And I'd be in favour of removing the class entirely. Just use a
> > single ByteString type. I don't think the overloading buys us
> > anything.
>
> Which one should it use, lazy bytestring?
>

Probably yes, assuming we want to retain the ability to lazily stream
responses. Which is very nearly the only raison d'etre of the HTTP package
at this point.


> I'm not particularly keen on removing the overloading as I don't think
> keeping it costs much for now and I kind of like the idea.


It doesn't cost much, but it also seems to no longer have any benefit,
which suggests that it could usefully be dropped.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20120913/1a5eabc2/attachment.htm>