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

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 00:27:34 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAehjzhdiJSs_-k7L890DYCAQiztS3CV4=cNQ1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> On 02/11/2010, at 2:09 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> The 'crazy encoding' you refer to isn't dreamed up by the Web server. Regardless, if you'd like to pursue this path, you need to make a proposal and do the legwork to show that implementers will support it, with a reasonable backwards-compatibility story.
>>
>> Has Julian done the legwork to show that implementers will support his
>> draft?  All the bugs I've seen that he's filed with Chrome seem to end
>> up with Jungshik Shin refusing to implement his proposal.
>
> Yes; he's written a draft, done an interoperability matrix and associated testing, justified his design decisions, and followed up with implementers.
>
> That's "the legwork."
>
> The bugs that I see Julian and Jungshik interacting over seem to be characterised by Julian answering his questions; I don't see outright refusal at all.

It's true that the bugs are getting marked Mstone-X rather than
WONTFIX.  I can follow up with Jungshik in person to see figure out
what's going on.  Certainly implementing filename* seems valuable as
it would give folks a predictable mechanism for using non-ASCII
characters in their requested file names.

>>>> Also, we should remove the language tagging facility
>>>> because it is gratuitous.
>>>
>>> Can you say a bit more here? We can open an issue for this, but your reasoning (beyond "it's gratuitous") isn't clear.
>>
>> Put another way: what's the use case for including a language tag?
>
> If for no other reason, it's included now because it's in 5987, where it's included (AIUI) because some headers may have need for it.
>
> Are you suggesting that receivers MAY ignore it, or that senders MUST NOT send it?

I'm suggesting we should use a syntax that doesn't have a slot for
language.  For example, simply %-encoded UTF8 would seem to address
the real use case here.  If 5987 is squatting on filename*, then we
can call it awesome-filename or whatever.

Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 07:28:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:32 GMT