- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:45:43 -0700
- To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, httpbis Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com> 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.
Adam
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2010 19:46:50 UTC