W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2008

Re: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:17:00 -0700
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2F02B593-FEFC-49FB-864D-C408E59B8A65@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>


On Mar 17, 2008, at 2:33 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I think we all assumed good faith on Julian's part until it became  
>> clear he was trying to game the system to prove a point. I'm glad  
>> he finally
> I was not.
> Just because I added an ironic remark about the process doesn't mean  
> that I did not raise the technical issue with good reasons.

My impression was that you made your proposal not because you actually  
wanted it accepted, but because you suspected it would be opposed, in  
order to demonstrate a point about other features of HTML5 (such as  
content sniffing) that touch on HTTP, i.e. that similar arguments  
apply and they should also be rejected. I was not the only one to get  
that impression. Since it sounded like that was your intent, I really  
didn't want to discuss the feature on the merits any further. If that  
was not your intent then I apologize; but that certainly wasn't clear  
from your emails.

Now, from the combination of your statements, I'm still unsure what  
you intend:

1) Do you sincerely think HTML5 should require particular handling of  
the Content-Disposition header, despite in all other cases arguing  
strenuously against specs "profiling the underlying protocol"? If so,  
then that deserves to be discussed on the merits, and I apologize for  
cutting you off. (I happen to think that on balance it's not worth  
adding to HTML5, but that should be discussed on the list.)

2) Did you raise this proposal to show that the arguments against it  
also argue for removing other features that are already in HTML5? In  
that case, please make your point about those features directly instead.

I assumed these were mutually exclusive options, but I suppose you  
could have both aims. If so, then mixing them up makes things even  
more confusing to readers, since they cannot even tell if your  
proposal is made in good faith.

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 22:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:18 UTC