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

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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 

I was not.

Just because I added an ironic remark about the process doesn't mean 
that I did not raise the technical issue with good reasons.

> 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 

Whether Content-Disposition should be part of HTTP (the transport 
protocol) or HTML5 (a very large document making tons on UA 
requirements) is IMHO totally not clear.

> 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.

I didn't say "content sniffing", but this is indeed a good example.

Anyway, I raised the issue because I think it would be good to have a 
reliable way to use I18N in C-D, and I honestly think that *in this 
case*, HTML5 actually *is* the right place to state the requirement -- I 
don't think the HTTP WG will be able to do anything here (by charter), 
and BCPs and W3C Notes (as suggested by Karl) are unlikely to have any 
impact on UA implementors.

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 21:34:44 UTC