Ticket 260: multiple disposition types, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

> Note that it may be resolved by indicating that 'treat as invalid' is specific to the application at hand. As such, I'd like initial discussion of this in the WG to focus on:
>   a) use cases: how different implementations / applications may want to have different notions of 'invalid' (or not), and
>   b) security: what the security impact of having different notions of 'invalid' here may be, and
>   c) interoperability: likewise, the interop impact.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03#section-3.2
>> This section does not define how user agents ought to process header
>> field values with multiple disposition types.  According to this test
>> case<http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline2>, user agents
>> MUST use the first disposition type.
> Ticket:
>    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/260

That's incorrect.

Have a look at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline>; in this 
case IE picks the second one.

There is no interop here today, and this doesn't seem to be a problem in 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:44:19 UTC