Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition

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?

Adam