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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 21:10:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA8D52D.5050303@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 20:52, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Eric J. Bowman<eric@bisonsystems.net>  wrote:
>> Adam Barth wrote:
>>> 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
>> I do not see the relevance of user agent implementation concerns, to
>> HTTP defining what constitutes conformant messaging syntax.
> Indeed.  It's precisely this lack of caring about the concerns of user
> agent implementors that's causing the problem.

I don't think finger pointing is helpful.

If I wasn't interested in user agent concerns, I wouldn't have compiled 
all the test cases and results, opened bugs, communicated with browser 
vendors, and even fixed some of the bugs in Firefox.

The main issue that we have is that Microsoft for some reason invented a 
new syntax instead of using the proposed one, then did not document it, 
and also did not make it work in all cases (making it dependent on the 
recipient's local). It simply was a very very bad design decision. And 
that Chrome copied it (despite the fact that no other browser did) 
didn't help.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:57:52 UTC

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