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

Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 07:31:27 +0100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Message-id: <A3382060-33B2-4B41-AE39-B296E2429B25@apple.com>
To: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>

Hi Eric,

On Nov 5, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Eric J. Bowman wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Posting links to divisive flamebait doesn't seem like a good way to
>> move the conversation forward.
> Meekly holding my tongue in the face of an effort to make browser
> concerns of paramount importance here, doesn't seem like a good way to
> move HTTPbis forward.  There's a reason the HTML 5 effort has led to
> such out-of-character posts from the likes of Michael Kay.  Should I be
> pleased with Adam's dismissive, arrogant, passive-aggressive responses
> to my concerns here, regarding his insistence that C-D is "useless"?
> Now that I've experienced first-hand exactly the attitude which others
> have been complaining about for some time, not only do I understand the
> prevailing frustration, I find myself in complete agreement with it.
> Treating others professionally, and with the respect they deserve, is
> what moves the conversation forward -- and prevents the need to post
> rants/links like that.

For a long time, browser implementors have not been a significant part of the conversation for standards like HTTP. Perhaps as a result of this, HTTP underserves the needs of Web browsers in some ways. Now, browsers are not the only HTTP clients in the world, but they are fairly important ones - a whole lot of people in the world run HTTP servers with the primary goal of delivering content to users browsing the Web with a Web browser. It's not the only use case, but it's one important use case, and it often has specialized requirements. To have a good standard, it's important to have a wide range of the important stakeholders at the table.

Now, at least a few browser implementors are trying to join the conversation and express our requirements. The topic of this particular thread is a fairly trivial request - an optional specification for error recovery when parsing the Content-Disposition header. Browser implementors like to agree on error recovery, because we find that in general it makes things better for our users. It seems like experimenting with this approach using an *optional* spec for *one* header field is a low-stakes experiment that won't hurt anyone who doesn't care to participate.

For you to post angry tirades in this thread, whether your own or someone else's, seems out of all proportion to the point at stake here. Further, it makes browser vendors feel attacked and unwelcome. That's not going to draw people into the conversation. People with different opinions from you generally have their own good reasons, perhaps due to different experiences or culture.

Please consider the consequences of your attitude. We are all much better off if browser vendors can participate effectively in this group. It's ok to disagree on technical points, but please, try to keep it polite and professional. Stick to technical points and not personal attacks. And consider giving a little extra leeway to some people who are important stakeholders, but often feel unwelcome in this group. I find it especially ironic that you call for professionalism and respect while not really granting the same here. I hope you will reconsider.

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 06:32:05 UTC

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