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

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Another way to address this is to recognize the problem, and suggest 
> that servers that actually *want* a verbatim %-sequence in the
> filename will *have* to use the 2231/5987 encoding. If that's what's
> needed to get the missing UAs to implement filename*, I'll be more
> than happy to make that change.

But what if that causes more problems than it solves?  There's no
evidence that the expectation of decoding is more common than the
expectation that % be taken literally.  It would be a shame to break
compatibility of existing sites on the basis of a vaguely-defined edge
case, particularly when the %-literal folks have a stronger case for
expecting interoperability than do the %-decode folks, who have never
had any expectation of interoperability.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  I'm all for interoperable browsers,
just against penalizing folks who didn't do anything wrong, to achieve


Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:08:11 UTC