Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt

Hi,

  In http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt
section 3.3:

   "filename" and "filename*" behave the same, except that "filename*"
   uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use of
   characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set
   ([ISO-8859-1]).  When both "filename" and "filename*" are present, a
   recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" - this will
   make it possible to send the same header value to clients that do not
   support "filename*".

Some points on this: starting a paragaph with lower case is poor form,
add something like "The parameters ...". "Behave" is probably also not
the right word to use.

As for ISO-8859-1, RFC 2616 only said what to use for non-ISO-8859-1 in
headers, it never defined that headers are otherwise ISO-8859-1 and it
is unfortunately common to use other encodings there (the draft notes
the opposite in fact.) It would be better to refer to "most of Unicode"
or something like that instead to avoid suggesting ISO-8859-1 should
work fine.

I don't think sending exactly the same value would make it useful to
send both parameters, it would rather seem filename could be a fallback,
which would imply a different, perhaps less sophisticated, value.

So perhaps something along the lines of "The parameters 'filename' and
'filename*' differ only in ... wider repertoire of characters ... fall-
back ..."

In section 4 the examples should be indented. It might be better to use
a value like "example" in place of "foo".

In appendix C.4 there is "should we mention the implementation status of
actual UAs in a RFC?" I think it would be better to submit such reports
under <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html> and possibly
include a pointer in the RFC.

regards,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Saturday, 11 September 2010 21:57:49 UTC