- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:37:14 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: >> A. Message headers: <http://www.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/40> >> >> I have added those throughout, but I wonder...: >> >> 1) What's the standards status of Content-Disposition? >> >> - it's defined in RFC2616, but it says: "Content-Disposition is not >> part of the HTTP standard, but since it is widely implemented, we are >> documenting its use and risks for implementors." (in the Security >> Considerations) >> >> - the initial registry (RFC4229) says "standard" >> (<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4229#section-2.1.22>) >> >> - however the actual registry >> (<http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html>) >> doesn't mention a status >> >> -> I'm tempted to leave it as defined in registry, so with no entry >> for the standard status > > I vaguely remember struggling with this when we put the registry > together. It doesn't fit well, but one can look at its use in HTTP as > being defined in 2616 -- which is a standards-track document -- even if > 2616 goes out of its way to say that C-D isn't part of the standard. > > In actuality, though, this is an artefact of the use of Semantic Web > technology to put together the registry. *shrug* > > >> 2) Should we include more information, such as whether the header >> accepts list syntax? Can we, without changing the registration procedure? > > This is what 'related information' is for. > ... OK. So for the headers defined by "us", we'd add that as "related information", but will not attempt any changes to the registration procedure... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 9 June 2008 13:38:00 UTC