- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:05:35 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 02.10.2010 23:48, Adam Barth wrote: >> There seems to be a lot of things generated by the grammar that are >> nonsensical. ... > > Such as? On closer inspection, the repeated filename issue is the most important. >> Indeed. However, this document does not contain the rules for >> consuming the header in sufficient detail for me to implement a user >> agent. I need to look at another document for that information. >> Sadly, that document doesn't yet exist. > > You are claiming that it is insufficient to only accept valid headers. > Please provide evidence, then we have something to discuss. Jungshik Shin says "There are a lot of web sites that do what's expected by IE." http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=118#c1 Do you have evidence that, for example, the percent encoding is rarely used? In the absence of evidence, it's unlikely implementations will remove support for the behavior. Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:13:23 UTC