W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Content-Disposition

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:55:16 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g25vnv$j4g$1@ger.gmane.org>
Cc: ietf-message-headers@ietf.org

Julian Reschke wrote:

>>> -> I'm tempted to leave it as defined in registry, so with
>>> no entry for the standard status
>> That's cheating, and might not pass.  Just pick something
>> that fits, "standard" or "obsoleted" or "deprecated", same
>> idea as for the RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor entries.  From what
>> you wrote my vague impression is that "Content-Disposition"
>> in HTTP is a case like "Lines" for NNTP => "deprecated".
> I don't think we can deprecate it. After all, it's in wide use,
> and widely implemented, and there's no replacement.

Then you could say "standard", IMO the purpose of the registry 
is (1) to avoid collisions and (2) offer pointers for folks
looking for the specification.   

> So, saying "informational" probably would make sense.

Reading it again, RFC 3864 from start to end tries to explain
why *redefining* MIME Content-* header fields in individual
protocols can be a seriously flawed idea.  And it says that
the "status" for a permanent entry is set according to the
primary document defining it.  

IMO for a standards track RFC the default should be "standard".
Obviously it can be "deprecated" when the standard(s) say so,
e.g., "Lines".  Maybe a standard can also say "informational",
but I think it's not the intention of RFC 3834:

Forwarding to the message header list, Graham would know what
RFC 3864 wanted, and if a minor twist is okay or confusing.

Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2008 11:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:46 UTC