handling of unknown disposition types
|Reported by:||julian.reschke@…||Owned by:||julian.reschke@…|
|Component:||content-disp||Severity:||Active WG Document|
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:2 Changed 6 years ago by julian.reschke@…
- Resolution set to incorporated
- Status changed from new to closed
comment:4 Changed 6 years ago by mnot@…
- Resolution incorporated deleted
- Status changed from closed to reopened