Re: Content-Disposition next steps

On Nov 9, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 09.11.2010 02:53, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> ...
>>> - there's disagreement about whether we should require specific handling of invalid messages
>> Actually, I think we have agreement that it should *not* be required; the current discussion is whether it's useful to specify optional handling, and where that should be done. Does anyone disagree (i.e., think it should be required as part of HTTP)?
> I agree it should not be required.
> (Note that even HTML5 allows recipients to reject non-conforming HTML)

Optional defined error recovery seems like a good step, so I am hesitant to rock the boat, but would it be a plausible future direction to say implementations must either use the defined error recovery or reject (with a clearly defined meaning of reject, i.e. completely ignore that header field, or discard the whole message, or whatever)?


Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 19:14:39 UTC