- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 09:58:11 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07.11.2010 22:59, Adam Barth wrote: > ... > Why would a server ever send two Content-Types headers? Why an HTML Because the code is setting it twice, maybe in different components. > document ever mis-nest tags? Why would a server ever send nonsense Because UAs accept it, and authors have almost zero reason to test it? > characters instead of an HTTP header? All these things happen in > practice because not everyone who operates servers is perfect. > ... Yes. But it doesn't happen for all areas with the same frequency. Thus I think you conclusion that the answer to this must be the same across all layers is wrong. >>> ... >>>> As my tests show, there is no "same" behavior right now. It's totally not >>>> clear that this is a problem in practice. >>> >>> It is a problem in practice. >> >> Why? > > Lack of interoperability usually a problem. Here's an example that > has been causing me a lot of pain recently. Consider this syntax in > an HTML document: > > <script src="..." /> I was talking about Content-Disposition specifically. > ... >> We currently have a warning. I would *love* to tell server implementors >> about a way to workaround this problem, but there isn't (for released >> versions of Chrome and IE). So what do you propose to tell senders? "%xx" is >> not allowed in filenames? > > Yes, just like we tell them that U+2665 isn't allowed. The inability to express a literal %xx sequence in a filename IMHO would be very strange. Right now the restriction is there de factor, but so is the restriction to ISO-8859-1. This spec tries to improve that. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 08:58:56 UTC