Re: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <> wrote:
> * Adam Barth wrote:
>>On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
>>> OK, although everything that can be said about this *has* been said, I'll
>>> repeat my p.o.v. here because this is the only mailing list thread specific
>>> to issue 259.
>>> On 02.11.2010 03:56, Adam Barth wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> The browser use case proceeds from the following premises.
>>>> 1) Many servers send invalid messages to user agents.
>>> No data was provided that this is indeed the case for C-D.
>>No data was provided that this isn't the case.  Given that we see
>>invalid message everywhere else, common sense tells us that we will
>>see invalid messages here too.
> Common sense tells us many things, for instance, that it is improper to
> respond to an argument about "not many" with "maybe some".
> What you are saying is untrue. Julian has gathered and shared data on
> how inconsistent error handling is across implementations; we can draw
> conclusions from that due to the obvious causal relationship between
> error rates and failure rates.

This is not a correct inference.

> And I have gathed and analyzed a data set and shared my findings about
> actual use of the Content-Disposition header on web sites, with a clear
> result as far as I am concerned.

I don't see any data in that message.

> You are the one demanding change, so the burden of proof is yours to
> bear. Seriously, I get my fair share of entertainment reading about the
> differences between 99.99% and 99.999% compatibility and how Mozilla
> have decided to not compete for market share in Asia, in the end we'll
> resolve this issue through rough consensus and running code, not based
> on how many times you say you really like to standardize error handling.

Indeed.  We've been shipping running code years now.


Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 00:15:20 UTC