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

Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 10:35:26 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E1EBA03F-F001-41D2-8123-E6438AA2C494@mnot.net>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>

On 12/12/2010, at 10:03 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> We want to treat those as an attachment.  Another grammer we could use
>>> might be the following:
>>>      field-value = item *( ";" item )
>>>      item          = disp-type / param
>>>      disp-type   =<OCTET, except ";" and "=">
>>>       param       = param-name "=" param-value
>>>      param-name =<OCTET, except "=">
>>>      param-value =<OCTET, except ";">
>>> We could then say that first disp-type and the first param are the
>>> ones that matter.  (I'm not sure this grammar handles<">  correctly,
>>> but I'm sure we can sort that out.)
>> If you did that, you'd be inconsistent with IE8:
>> <http://localhost:8080/tc2231/#attandinline>.
> Indeed.  Agreement between all the browsers isn't required to make progress.

No, but given that according to Julian's tests, all browsers currently ignore headers with multiple disp-types, *except* for IE8, which *doesn't* pick the first one, it seems we have a strong motivation for defining error handling here to be compatible with IE8, so that we don't create yet more incompatibility.

Do you have any technical justification for another approach?

>>>> D.3.  Checking Cardinality Constraints
>>>>   If the parameter sequence contains multiple instances of the same
>>>>   parameter name, ignore the whole header field.
>>> We'd prefer to use the first one rather than ignore the header field.
>> <http://localhost:8080/tc2231/#attwith2filenames>
>> Most UAs do indeed pick the first one, but it would be useful to understand
>> whether this is purely academic or not. Can you provide any evidence about
>> happening this in practice?
> I don't have any data to present at this time.  However, we still want
> to define how to handle these cases.  If it turns out not to affect
> any web sites, that's fine.

As long as it's not a requirement, I don't have any problem suggesting the first one.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 23:35:58 UTC

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