Re: Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

On 02.11.2010 09:56, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
> I'm more interested in the invalid header field instances.  This
> document doesn't explain how to parse them, much less how to process
> them.
> ...

No, it doesn't (and that's a separate discussion).

While we are at it, let me explain why 
<> has tests for invalid header fields 
in the first place. After all, if I don't really want to specify how 
they are processed, right?

The reason why there are there is that they serve the purpose of 
observing whether there is any kind of interop in UAs. If there was, it 
would be interesting to see whether that is by accident, or because 
existing content actually requires it.

I imagine that it is controversial how I rate the results. The idea is 
to say "pass" when the header field is ignored, "warn" when something 
happens that could be considered harmless, or "fail" when something 
serious happens (like UA crashing).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 11:11:49 UTC