- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 13:26:46 +0100
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 01.12.2010 23:53, Adam Barth wrote: > ... >> Not to mention that it's silly to treat `x=y; filename=example.txt` as if >> it had an unrecognized disposition type and should thus be handled as >> "attachment", which, say, Internet Explorer and Opera don't do, when >> you treat plain `filename=example.txt` as having no disposition type. > > Perhaps Julian would be willing to add this case to his test suite? > Silliness isn't one of the criteria I've applied. I added <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attmissingdisposition2> which fails for FF3/Chrome/Chrome9 (I see shared bugs :-), and <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#emptydisposition> which fails just for FF3. > ... >> Not to mention that this is utterly silly, if you have "x<name>=..." >> this would be handled as if the value had a `name` parameter with the >> empty string as value, as opposed to the semantically correct result, >> which would be "there is no `name` parameter". > > Perhaps this is another good test case to add to the suite. I'm > willing to believe this behavior isn't necessary, but I'd like to look > at some more evidence before changing it. > ... I'm not totally sure what exactly to test; please elaborate. >> And as you lack higher >> level control logic to actually separate parameters, this results in >> `example="filename=example.txt"` having the filename `example.txt"`, >> as opposed to the correct result, namely that there is no filename. > > Sounds like another good test case. <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#dispextbadfn> failing in Chrome only. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 12:27:29 UTC