Re: Content-Disposition cardinality / priority [was: TICKET 259: 'treat as invalid' not defined] from Adam Barth on 2011-02-03 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from January to March 2011)

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 12:37:13 -0800
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PT=-ZJ8E5H=EQH-jDdxF8O7wXEY_W2-M1dnU6@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> doesn't seem like there's much consensus among implementers here; unless one forms, I don't think we can say much.

As I've written before, this seems backwards.  How are implementations
to come to consensus if we don't write down a specification for how
they should behave?

Adam

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2011 20:38:19 UTC