- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:58:15 +0200
- To: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
- Cc: i-d-announce@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 12:34:50 UTC