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

Re: Feedback on draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03, was: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:55:10 +0100
Message-ID: <493F91FE.4000900@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>> It's good for telling people where to go when they need it. It may not 
>> be sufficient for ensuring that recipients actually implement it.
> Yes, I had that feeling too, but failed to find a good way to express 
> requirements.
>> Also note that RFC 2231 encoding affects the grammar.
> What's standard practice -- to explicitly call out the * form in the ABNF?

There is no good standard practice, and this is why interoperability 
sucks for Content-Disposition.

The precise way to do it to make it explicit in the ABNF. Such as:

( "title" "=" quoted-string ) | ( "title*" "=" enc2231-string )


enc2231-string = <extended-value, see RFC 2231, Section 7>

>> That being said, I already volunteered to profile and clarify RFC 2231 
>> for use in HTTP, but I'm not there yet 
>> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-latest.html>). 
>> If we can reach agreement that it's sufficient to support only some 
>> parts of RFC 2231 (no continuations, no charsets other than ISO8859-1 
>> and UTF-8), I can try to condense that statement into a very short 
>> paragraph.
> Please do.

Will do.

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:55:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:58 GMT