- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:07:35 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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 it. -Eric
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 21:08:11 UTC