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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 17:22:38 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD580CE.6010007@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
CC: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 04.11.2010 20:45, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
> That seems unlikely to be deployable.  What's more likely is that the
> new-and-improved consistent behavior will be permissive rather than
> draconian.  For example, in the multiple disposition-type case, we'd
> take the first disposition-type (or whatever) rather than ignoring the
> header field entirely.
> ...

Making IE non-compliant (or even more-compliant than before).

Can you remind me what the gain is? Do you have data on content of this 
type relying on one specific behavior?

I'll say it again: there are many things that can be done to improve 
things (for the whole HTTP space):

- clarify the spec for conforming headers, add examples

- write test cases

- identity bugs, lobby for fixing and/or supply patches

- identify common header micro syntaxes

- write reference implementations for the above

- encourage re-use of those patterns

- think about standardizing error recovery (or rule it out)

The last point in *my* point of view has the lowest priority, in 
particular as long as the implementations do not even treat *valid* 
header field values correctly.

Claiming we need to do all of this at the same time isn't constructive 
as long as the pool of people doing actual work doesn't grow.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 21:07:09 GMT

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