Re: [#259] Handling invalid Content-Dispostion headers

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Dan Winship <> wrote:
> On 11/04/2010 11:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I believe it would be a waste of energy to specify a specific strategy
>> *unless* we have evidence that it's needed in practice. For this
>> particular case (Content-Disposition in HTTP) I added several tests for
>> invalid headers just to observe whether implementations agree on what to
>> do, and in most cases they do not.
> So if there's no consistent behavior now, then rather than specifying
> how to interpret incorrect headers, can browsers just agree that the
> new-and-improved consistent behavior will be "draconian"? ("If the
> header doesn't exactly match the grammar, then you MUST ignore it in its
> entirety".)

That seems unlikely to be deployable.  What's more likely is that the
new-and-improved consistent behavior will be permissive rather than
draconian.  For example, in the multiple disposition-type case, we'd
take the first disposition-type (or whatever) rather than ignoring the
header field entirely.


Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 19:46:50 UTC