Opened 12 years ago
Closed 12 years ago
#242 closed design (fixed)
handling of unknown disposition types
Reported by: | julian.reschke@… | Owned by: | julian.reschke@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | unassigned |
Component: | content-disp | Severity: | Active WG Document |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
3.2. Disposition Type
Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
Shouldn't that read "Unknown disposition types"? or to be verbosely explicit "Unknown or unhandled disposition types"?
Seems odd to block future extensions like this. RFC2183 also speaks about unknown disposition types, not other.
Change History (5)
comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by julian.reschke@…
comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened
comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reopened to closed
Closed in last call process.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
From [989]:
Rephrase instructions on handling unknown disposition types (see #242)