- From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 15:42:12 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > On 12/12/2010, at 10:03 AM, Adam Barth wrote: >>>> >>>> We want to treat those as an attachment. Another grammer we could use >>>> might be the following: >>>> >>>> field-value = item *( ";" item ) >>>> item = disp-type / param >>>> disp-type =<OCTET, except ";" and "="> >>>> param = param-name "=" param-value >>>> param-name =<OCTET, except "="> >>>> param-value =<OCTET, except ";"> >>>> >>>> We could then say that first disp-type and the first param are the >>>> ones that matter. (I'm not sure this grammar handles<"> correctly, >>>> but I'm sure we can sort that out.) >>> >>> If you did that, you'd be inconsistent with IE8: >>> <http://localhost:8080/tc2231/#attandinline>. >> >> Indeed. Agreement between all the browsers isn't required to make progress. > > No, but given that according to Julian's tests, all browsers currently ignore headers with multiple disp-types, *except* for IE8, which *doesn't* pick the first one, it seems we have a strong motivation for defining error handling here to be compatible with IE8, so that we don't create yet more incompatibility. Oh, that's not how I interpret these tests: Content-Disposition: attachment; inline; filename=foo.html Content-Disposition: inline; attachment; filename=foo.html http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attandinline2 > Do you have any technical justification for another approach? In both those cases, every browser (except IE8 and possibly Konquerer) takes the first disposition-type. I'm just suggesting that we recommend the error handling behavior implemented by the majority of the browsers. >>>>> D.3. Checking Cardinality Constraints >>>>> >>>>> If the parameter sequence contains multiple instances of the same >>>>> parameter name, ignore the whole header field. >>>> >>>> We'd prefer to use the first one rather than ignore the header field. >>> >>> <http://localhost:8080/tc2231/#attwith2filenames> >>> >>> Most UAs do indeed pick the first one, but it would be useful to understand >>> whether this is purely academic or not. Can you provide any evidence about >>> happening this in practice? >> >> I don't have any data to present at this time. However, we still want >> to define how to handle these cases. If it turns out not to affect >> any web sites, that's fine. > > As long as it's not a requirement, I don't have any problem suggesting the first one. Great. :) Adam
Received on Sunday, 12 December 2010 23:43:16 UTC