Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition

On 03.10.2010 20:08, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Julian Reschke<>  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, 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:46:19 UTC