On 07/20/11 09:22, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:
Except that the other Content-disposition values express the sender's intent, whereas this one expresses the receiver's [likely] perception.
In this case, we have to invent a cute backronym for it that expresses
the sender's intent.... what about Not Optional {Ignorable,Irritating}
Suit-avoiding Exposition?
It might as well be "Content-disposition: discard" -- no sender would ever generate it. In contrast one could make at least a semi-serious case that by defining a media type for legal disclaimers, you could have UA's that by default hid it but didn't throw it away, so that you could see it later if for some inconceivable reason you wanted to. (And the issue of including different media types could be addressed by making it multipart/noise.)
On the other hand, if Ned and I disagree that's itself an indication that this is not a very serious discussion. :-) -- Nathaniel
We can always find a point of agreement - in this case on the
seriousness of the discussion!
On Jul 19, 2011, at 4:16 PM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Content-disposition: noise.
Harald, I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. Unless we're
prepared to talk about defining a general format for such notices (and I'm
pretty sure we're not interested in doing that), this doesn't fit as a media
type - I can easily envision using various different types depending on the
sort of notice I want to send.
But a content-disposition value has the right semantics and makes all sorts
of sense.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf