Re: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter)

Moving to www-archive.

On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak 08-03-16 23.46:
>> On Mar 16, 2008, at 12:01 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> So why would this be out-of-scope for HTML5, while it (still)  
>>>>> includes crap like "Peer-to-peer connections over IrDA" (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/#irda-peer 
>>>>> >)?
>>>> Now I'm not sure if you are trying to solve a problem in good  
>>>> faith or making an ironic suggestion to prove some sort of  
>>>> philosophical point.
>>>
>>> I'm being ironic because I have no idea where the people who  
>>> decide what's in and what's out draw the line.
>>
>> In the future, please let's apply this wise policy:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point
>
> Kudos to Julian for answering Maciej's question in good faith!
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF

I think we all assumed good faith on Julian's part until it became  
clear he was trying to game the system to prove a point. I'm glad he  
finally said so, but certainly his actions were not in good faith  
overall. Not a big deal at this point, but I was honestly confused why  
he was suddenly pushing for more HTTP-related requirements in the HTML  
spec, when he'd always argued against this sort of thing. A more  
straightforward way to illustrate his point would have been to point  
out this divergence, ask whether it is appropriate to somehow address  
in HTML5, and if not, how it differs from things that are specified in  
HTML5, such as content sniffing. These are reasonable questions, but  
trying to trick people is not a nice way to go about determining the  
answer.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 20:05:26 UTC