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

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

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:50:03 +0000
Cc: httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6BEC8A01-F944-40F4-A8D4-47E9243F21EA@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Mark,

On 2 Nov 2010, at 00:43, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> Adam,
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> At a high level, I'd like to use this discussion to resolve issue #186:
>  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/186
> in that once we figure out the depth of error-handling that's appropriate in this spec, we should be able to apply that to the HTTP spec overall. 


One thing that occurred to me (and a trawl of the RFC series would probably throw up a few examples like rfc4647[1]) is whether the best way to slice this up is to avoid being exhaustive wrt error-handling for all UA types in the HTTP spec itself and to have a separate BCP that covers the situations that most common(/whatever criteria apply).

Something like "Observed Browser treatment of the C-D header" or "Guidelines for implementing C-D error handling" etc.

Ben


[1] It's just the first BCP I found from a quick search that looked like it might make an example (which means it's probably not a particularly great example).
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 11:50:36 GMT

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