Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt

3.2.  Disposition Type

   Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as
   "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).

Shouldn't that read "Unknown disposition types"?
or to be verbosely explicit "Unknown or unhandled disposition types"?

Seems odd to block future extensions like this. RFC2183 also speaks
about unknown disposition types, not other.

I do not see HTTP being very much different than other message
interchange forms in this regard. Worth noting as a reflection is that a
very large proportion of deployed HTTP agents do not have screen output
at all but present their output in other manners.

>From a quick eyeball over the IANA registry many of the entries there
may be applied in an HTTP context as-is, depending on the client
application and not protocol. Not just the initial "inline" and
"attachment" types. Which makes me question the wording of 3.5 as well a
bit, but it's quite good as it is.


Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 12:34:50 UTC