- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:36:23 +0100
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 07.03.2011 23:09, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > ... >> I see two ways out: >> >> - recognize that 5987 and 5988 are wrong, raise errata, and fix C-D before it goes to the IESG >> >> - recognize that 5987 and 5988 reflect common usage, and potentially fix it in HTTPbis > > I do not know of any such usage, let alone common. > > ....Roy This may be an artefact from RFC2068/2616 not really using "parameter" as common protocol element. If you look at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-19.6.2.4> (Link) and <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.19.5.1> (Content-Disposition), you will notice they do not use the generic parameter ABNF; and thus are not affected by the prose over there. Furthermore, <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/> shows that browsers universally accept LSWP around "=" for Content-Disposition, so I wouldn't be surprised if senders rely on it. We probably should have similar tests for Content-Type. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2011 07:37:03 UTC