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

Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:08:06 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2j7F4YJpx5XpspHP==jsav3w5_GSodN046pt-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 02.10.2010 21:46, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> tersection of what works in all major browsers and what actually occurs
>> in practise where it is more than a slight inconvenience for the user
>> if the header is ignored alltogether, we won't end up with something
>> that's noticably different than what's in the draft.
> Exactly. I don't see any interop for malformed headers right now. There's
> nothing to be standardized, and also, nothing that *needs* to be
> standardized.

That's true from the server's perspective.  Servers are interested in
generating headers that work in the intersection of user agent
behavior.  User agents, however, are interested in processing the
maximal subset of Content-Disposition headers generated by servers.

> I'm much more interested in achieving interoperability for *valid* header
> fields.

Well, that depends on the definition of valid, doesn't it?

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:34:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC