Re: Round 3: moving HTTP 1.0 to informational

>> It is a "you should've figured this one out already, but too many
>> implementors have already screwed up on it" kind of sentence.  Given
>> that Mosaic was the worst culprit, I'd like to see it in the spec. 
>> How about:
> 
>>   Upon receipt of a media type with an unrecognized parameter,
>>   a user agent should treat the media type as if the unrecognized
>>   parameter and its value were not present.
> 
> I'm still confused. What did Mosaic do wrong that this wording would
> have told them not to do?

When we first asked people to use the version and/or level parameters
of text/html, we encountered problems due to Mosaic popping up a
"Save As..." dialog (what it does for unrecognized media types)
for any document labelled

    text/html;version="2.0"

even though the browser was perfectly capable of handling that type.

.....Roy