- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:55:28 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> 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 > practice. That's a pretty defeatist attitude. Put another way, four out of five browsers agree: we ought to use the first disposition type. Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:56:34 UTC