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

Content-Disposition next steps

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 14:39:46 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD6AC22.8090004@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi there,

the ongoing discussions are very interesting, as they are relevant to 
most stuff we do in Part 1 through 7 as well.

My take-away is:

- there's disagreement about whether we should require specific handling 
of invalid messages

- if implementers want to do so, they are free to do that in a separate 
informational document


- we should keep in mind that every cycle we spend on this discussion 
keeps us from doing other stuff, and many over here feel that other 
things have a higher priority

- for C-D, the *real* problem isn't lacking interop for invalid 
messages, but lack of interop for *valid* messages

So I'd encourage to de-couple this discussion from the actual 
Content-Disposition spec, and let those who want work on that as a 
separate activity (the question of whether that should become a WG work 
item will be interesting).

I'd like to get C-D to IETF LC as soon as possible, thus get everything 
*else* we can resolve done in the next days.

The currently open issues are at 
and I believe this list contains open tickets that can be closed as 
duplicates (Mark?).

Also, I'm going to say that I consider the work on tests, and 
documenting the current UA problems in a single place was a success. We 
got minor problems fixed in Opera and Konqueror, Mozilla is likely to 
improve soon, and the Chrome nightly builds now have RFC 5987 support.

I believe we should continue this work with other header fields, and a 
quite obvious candidate would be "Content-Type", which incidentally has 
two related HTML WG issues 
(<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/125> and 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2010 13:40:22 UTC

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