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

Issue 244 (repeated parameters), was: Working Group Last Call: Content-Disposition

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:55:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC03852.3090205@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 17.10.2010 20:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> 2) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/244>: "state that
> repeating parameters are invalid"
> Addressed in "latest" draft with
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1024>.
> ...

I should have mentioned what I added:

"Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated; a header field value with 
multiple instances of the same parameter &SHOULD; be treated as invalid."

This goes a bit further than post HTTP header field definitions in 
saying "SHOULD be treated as invalid", which is equivalent to "SHOULD 
NOT do error recovery".

Maybe this should be reduced to a simple statement of fact ("is 
invalid"), without requiring any specific behavior (*)?

Best regards, Julian

(*) I understand that some among us believe that error handling needs to 
be specified; but *if* we do this (and I don't think we should), we 
should be consistent in doing that.
Received on Thursday, 21 October 2010 12:56:28 UTC

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