Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02

On 03.10.2010 20:05, Adam Barth wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Julian Reschke<>  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.

OK, that will get a clarification as being invalid.

>>> 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."
> 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.

The only reason why legacy servers would use percent-escaping is because 
they were written for IE only.

Every other server will sniff; and at least for the one case where I had 
to do this, I enabled the IE behavior only for IE. (Every other UA will 
get RFC2231 encoding).

I can't provide empirical data, though.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:50:54 UTC