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

Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:05:35 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTindKHARq3id9mw-Ypbqm9Z09Rb4qTtZKCPaU-_N@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 02.10.2010 23:48, Adam Barth wrote:
>> There seems to be a lot of things generated by the grammar that are
>> nonsensical.  ...
>
> Such as?

On closer inspection, the repeated filename issue is the most important.

>> Indeed.  However, this document does not contain the rules for
>> consuming the header in sufficient detail for me to implement a user
>> agent.  I need to look at another document for that information.
>> Sadly, that document doesn't yet exist.
>
> You are claiming that it is insufficient to only accept valid headers.
> Please provide evidence, then we have something to discuss.

Jungshik Shin says "There are a lot of web sites that do what's
expected by IE."
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=118#c1

Do you have evidence that, for example, the percent encoding is rarely
used?  In the absence of evidence, it's unlikely implementations will
remove support for the behavior.

Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:13:23 GMT

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