Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki

On 13.12.2010 22:02, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
>> If they do they are in trouble anyway, because including a path separator
>> indicates either a bug, or a deliberate attempt to make the client do
>> something stupid.
>> It would be helpful if you gave an example of a header value where you think
>> that doing the decoding is harmful in practice.
> I've done that several times before.
> ...

Pointer, please. I recall one example to which I responded and didn't 
get any feedback.

See <>.

> ...
>>>> 2) against %-decoding
>>>> + it makes passing the "%" impossible
>>>> + it's in violation of the current specs
>>>> + it's not interoperable (only Chrome and IE do it), so changes the
>>>> interpretation of currently valid messages
>>> 2) For %-decoding
>>> + IE is unlikely to stop %-decoding the Content-Disposition header, so
>>> if we're going to get browsers to converge on a single behavior, it's
>>> going to be much easier to get all the browsers to adopt %-decoding.
>> We haven't heard anything from IE, so we don't know.
>> If we always standardized on what IE does, we'd end with very funny specs.
>> Also, why doesn't the same argument apply to all other decisions you're
>> making?
> In the absence of hard data, many of these decisions are judgement
> calls.  In general, doing things differently from IE requires careful
> thought.  Is there some other specific behavior you have in mind?  The
> only one that comes to mind is our using the first disposition-type
> rather than the last disposition-type.  In that case, every other

For example.

> non-IE browser uses the first disposition-type, so that seemed like
> the thing to do.

IE8 doesn't appear to sniff for UTF-8; see 

>  ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 21:22:48 UTC