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

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:41:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4C8D2CF8.9030403@gmx.de>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Hi Björn,

thanks for the feedback; comments inline.

On 11.09.2010 23:57, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    In http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt
> section 3.3:
>
>     "filename" and "filename*" behave the same, except that "filename*"
>     uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use of
>     characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set
>     ([ISO-8859-1]).  When both "filename" and "filename*" are present, a
>     recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" - this will
>     make it possible to send the same header value to clients that do not
>     support "filename*".
>
> Some points on this: starting a paragaph with lower case is poor form,
> add something like "The parameters ...". "Behave" is probably also not
> the right word to use.

OK.

> As for ISO-8859-1, RFC 2616 only said what to use for non-ISO-8859-1 in
> headers, it never defined that headers are otherwise ISO-8859-1 and it
> is unfortunately common to use other encodings there (the draft notes
> the opposite in fact.) It would be better to refer to "most of Unicode"
> or something like that instead to avoid suggesting ISO-8859-1 should
> work fine.

Actually it *does* work fine. I'm open to changing the spec to say it 
should be avoided, though.

> I don't think sending exactly the same value would make it useful to
> send both parameters, it would rather seem filename could be a fallback,
> which would imply a different, perhaps less sophisticated, value.

Not sure what you're referring to here. Please elaborate.

> So perhaps something along the lines of "The parameters 'filename' and
> 'filename*' differ only in ... wider repertoire of characters ... fall-
> back ..."

I now have:

    The parameters "filename" and "filename*" differ only in that
    "filename*" uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use
    of characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set
    ([ISO-8859-1]).  When both "filename" and "filename*" are present, a
    recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" - this will
    make it possible to send the same header value to clients that do not
    support "filename*".

> In section 4 the examples should be indented. It might be better to use
> a value like "example" in place of "foo".

Done. (*)

> In appendix C.4 there is "should we mention the implementation status of
> actual UAs in a RFC?" I think it would be better to submit such reports
> under<http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html>  and possibly
> include a pointer in the RFC.

Thanks for the pointer (I wasn't aware of that page, or forgot in the 
meantime).

Best regards, Julian

(*) Current edits at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest.html>
Received on Sunday, 12 September 2010 19:42:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:25 GMT