Re: treating invalid parameters in Content-Disposition

Adam Barth wrote:
> That's the interesting question for folks who wish to generate the
> header.  The question for folks who want to consume the header is
> different.  The operative question is "what single semantic theory
> captures the intended semantics of the largest number of messages
> generated in practice?"  These two things are quite likely to be
> different in this case.  (I'm writing up a longer message explaining
> this statement.)

I understand what you mean perfectly well.  I still don't see the
relevance of that dichotomy to HTTP.  Why should C-D generation be
defined in terms of handling syntax that was never specified?  Why
should such implementation details even be included in HTTP?  Why
*isn't* 99% interoperability of the conformant syntax good enough?

> > I do not see the relevance of user agent implementation concerns, to
> > HTTP defining what constitutes conformant messaging syntax.
> Indeed.  It's precisely this lack of caring about the concerns of user
> agent implementors that's causing the problem.

Browser vendors.  If addressing your concerns means that all user
agents are expected to behave like browsers, then my perspective is
that it would reflect a lack of caring about the concerns of anyone
else implementing HTTP.  What's right for browsers isn't necessarily
right for wget/curl, in fact the diverse re-use of those two user
agents is evidence that it would be impossible to come to consensus on
HTTP if its scope were to include implementation instructions for user
agents.  Some things are best left unspecified, rather than impossibly


Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 19:28:47 UTC