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

Re: Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:55:28 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=X9oaq-yD=csBoeUS3S6WfgZpoiD0Epz-siign@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Note that it may be resolved by indicating that 'treat as invalid' is
>> specific to the application at hand. As such, I'd like initial discussion of
>> this in the WG to focus on:
>>  a) use cases: how different implementations / applications may want to
>> have different notions of 'invalid' (or not), and
>>  b) security: what the security impact of having different notions of
>> 'invalid' here may be, and
>>  c) interoperability: likewise, the interop impact.
>>
>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03#section-3.2
>>>
>>> This section does not define how user agents ought to process header
>>> field values with multiple disposition types.  According to this test
>>> case<http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline2>, user agents
>>> MUST use the first disposition type.
>>
>> Ticket:
>>   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/260
>
> That's incorrect.
>
> Have a look at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline>; in this
> case IE picks the second one.
>
> There is no interop here today, and this doesn't seem to be a problem in
> practice.

That's a pretty defeatist attitude.  Put another way, four out of five
browsers agree: we ought to use the first disposition type.

Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:56:34 GMT

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