W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:28:27 +0200
Message-ID: <4C84EC7B.8010905@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 05.09.2010 23:58, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> 3.2.  Disposition Type
>     Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as
>     "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
> Shouldn't that read "Unknown disposition types"?
> or to be verbosely explicit "Unknown or unhandled disposition types"?
> Seems odd to block future extensions like this. RFC2183 also speaks
> about unknown disposition types, not other.

Yup. Fixed with <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/989>.

> I do not see HTTP being very much different than other message
> interchange forms in this regard. Worth noting as a reflection is that a
> very large proportion of deployed HTTP agents do not have screen output
> at all but present their output in other manners.
>> From a quick eyeball over the IANA registry many of the entries there
> may be applied in an HTTP context as-is, depending on the client
> application and not protocol. Not just the initial "inline" and
> "attachment" types. Which makes me question the wording of 3.5 as well a
> bit, but it's quite good as it is.

It currently says:

"3.5 Extensibility

Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for 
disposition types and disposition parameters. This registry is shared by 
different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME and HTTP. 
Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the context of HTTP."

Do we need to change something here?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 13:29:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:54 UTC