- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:39:46 -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 8:24 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> => Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated. >>> >>> The document should not phrase normative requirements in the passive >>> voice. Instead, the document should make clear which protocol >>> partipants are bound by each requirement. For example, this >>> requirement probably should read "servers MUST NOT generate >>> Content-Disposition header field values with multiple instances of the >>> same parameter name." >> >> I think this is largely editorial feedback; it probably isn't appropriate >> to say 'servers..' but something like >> >> Senders MUST NOT generate C-D header field values with multiple instances >> of the same parameter name. >> >> Ticket: >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/258 > > I made it say: > > Senders MUST NOT generate header field values with multiple instances > of the same parameter name. Recipients SHOULD treat these values as > invalid. > > (see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1073>). Thanks. Adam
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 16:40:56 UTC