W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-125: charset-vs-quotes - Straw Poll for Objections

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 19:46:02 +0100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vriw20brsr6mfa@nog>
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 18:50:21 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

> a comment on Philip's objection in  
> <http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-125-objection-poll/results>:
>
>> ...
>> More importantly, the suggested change does not appear to actually  
>> align the spec with RFC2616, which was the whole point. Here's my  
>> reading:
>>
>> 1. Start at Content-Type  
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-14.17>
>> 2. Follow reference to Media Types  
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.7>
>> 3. Find "Parameters MAY follow the type/subtype in the form of  
>> attribute/value pairs (as defined in section 3.6)" It says MAY, so I  
>> would really stop here, saying that HTTP doesn't define how to parse  
>> parameters of Content-Type.
>
> How so? You seem to have a strange understanding about what MAY/OPTIONAL  
> means.

Yes, RFC 2119 is not my mother tongue. It seems like MAY here means that  
it's optional for implementations to handle the parameter syntax, not that  
specs or implementations could ever allow some other syntax here. I've  
removed the nitpick from my objection.

>> 4. Ignore the MAY and follow the reference to Transfer Codings  
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-3.6>
>> 5. Follow the reference to quoted-string in  
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-2.2>
>>
>> We've arrived at:
>>
>> quoted-string = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
>> qdtext = <any TEXT except <">>
>> quoted-pair = "\" CHAR
>>
>> Since the suggested change doesn't handle the backslash-escaping  
>> mechanism, it is failing to 'parse quotes in Content-Type headers in  
>> "meta" elements in a HTTP compliant manner', so it would not be  
>> appropriate remove the willful violation note based on the reasoning in  
>> this CP.
>
> Implementing backslash-escaping is a separate issue (ISSUE-126). I have  
> tried to treat these as orthogonal issues, and the CP is pretty clear  
> about that.

If ISSUE-125 depends on the outcome of ISSUE-126 then they should have  
been considered together, but that's up to you and the chairs. As things  
stand, if just your CP for ISSUE-125 is accepted then the resulting  
algorithm will not 'parse quotes in Content-Type headers in "meta"  
elements in a HTTP compliant manner', and so the willful violation cannot  
be removed.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2011 18:46:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:22 GMT