W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Content-Disposition: LWS in parameter ABNF; was: ISSUE-280: whitespace in parameter syntax?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:36:23 +0100
Message-ID: <4D75DC77.1030605@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07.03.2011 23:09, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
>> I see two ways out:
>>
>> - recognize that 5987 and 5988 are wrong, raise errata, and fix C-D before it goes to the IESG
>>
>> - recognize that 5987 and 5988 reflect common usage, and potentially fix it in HTTPbis
>
> I do not know of any such usage, let alone common.
>
> ....Roy

This may be an artefact from RFC2068/2616 not really using "parameter" 
as common protocol element. If you look at 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.2.4> (Link) and 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.19.5.1> 
(Content-Disposition), you will notice they do not use the generic 
parameter ABNF; and thus are not affected by the prose over there.

Furthermore, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/> shows that browsers 
universally accept LSWP around "=" for Content-Disposition, so I 
wouldn't be surprised if senders rely on it.

We probably should have similar tests for Content-Type.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 07:37:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:37 GMT