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

Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:45:43 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA8CF57.2040800@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 20:08, Adam Barth wrote:
> 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.

OK, so I think the interesting question is: is the subset where there 
*is* interop today any bigger than the one defined in the spec?

>> I'm much more interested in achieving interoperability for *valid* header
>> fields.
>
> Well, that depends on the definition of valid, doesn't it?

Of course the definition of "valid" *could* be changed. Optimally, we'd 
stay consistent with general parameter parsing rules and previous specs, 
though.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:46:19 GMT

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