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

Re: Content-Disposition next steps

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:13:52 -0800
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Message-id: <C35C92B0-7A6F-44E0-A905-1800BC58747A@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 09.11.2010 02:53, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>>> - there's disagreement about whether we should require specific handling of invalid messages
>> 
>> Actually, I think we have agreement that it should *not* be required; the current discussion is whether it's useful to specify optional handling, and where that should be done. Does anyone disagree (i.e., think it should be required as part of HTTP)?
> 
> I agree it should not be required.
> 
> (Note that even HTML5 allows recipients to reject non-conforming HTML)

Optional defined error recovery seems like a good step, so I am hesitant to rock the boat, but would it be a plausible future direction to say implementations must either use the defined error recovery or reject (with a clearly defined meaning of reject, i.e. completely ignore that header field, or discard the whole message, or whatever)?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:14:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT