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

Re: issue 258, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:39:46 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikgw+wa4nnjRPbF+q24hEYNeg=jq5+sOurtcAUF@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 8:24 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> =>  Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated.
>>>
>>> The document should not phrase normative requirements in the passive
>>> voice.  Instead, the document should make clear which protocol
>>> partipants are bound by each requirement.  For example, this
>>> requirement probably should read "servers MUST NOT generate
>>> Content-Disposition header field values with multiple instances of the
>>> same parameter name."
>>
>> I think this is largely editorial feedback; it probably isn't appropriate
>> to say 'servers..' but something like
>>
>> Senders MUST NOT generate C-D header field values with multiple instances
>> of the same parameter name.
>>
>> Ticket:
>>   http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/258
>
> I made it say:
>
>   Senders MUST NOT generate header field values with multiple instances
>   of the same parameter name.  Recipients SHOULD treat these values as
>   invalid.
>
> (see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1073>).

Thanks.

Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:40:56 GMT

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