- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:45:43 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 20:08, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 02.10.2010 21:46, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> tersection of what works in all major browsers and what actually occurs >>> in practise where it is more than a slight inconvenience for the user >>> if the header is ignored alltogether, we won't end up with something >>> that's noticably different than what's in the draft. >> >> Exactly. I don't see any interop for malformed headers right now. There's >> nothing to be standardized, and also, nothing that *needs* to be >> standardized. > > That's true from the server's perspective. Servers are interested in > generating headers that work in the intersection of user agent > behavior. User agents, however, are interested in processing the > maximal subset of Content-Disposition headers generated by servers. OK, so I think the interesting question is: is the subset where there *is* interop today any bigger than the one defined in the spec? >> I'm much more interested in achieving interoperability for *valid* header >> fields. > > Well, that depends on the definition of valid, doesn't it? Of course the definition of "valid" *could* be changed. Optimally, we'd stay consistent with general parameter parsing rules and previous specs, though. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:46:19 UTC