Tim Bray wrote:
On Jun 19, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Bill de hOra wrote:Short version: I think this draft can't be implemented in a browser [1].Assuming you're right (although we shouldn't underestimate the ingenuity of the rabble who make browsers do lots of things nobody thought were possible),
That will be operationally equivalent to a browser exploit. Not something for an IETF wg to be hoping on, surely.
I'm not sure it's a problem. It strikes me that anything coming from a human-operated browser is by definition fairly low-frequency. I see the application of atompub-multipart more in the space where you have various kinds of programmable clients that are more likely to be the source of high-volume traffic. -T
That's not a valid rationale for me; sheer browser volume make other clients look like rounding errors.
To be clear, I'm all for this getting onto the standards treack, but this is one reason why my initial feedback included the suggestion that other multipart options not be excluded by design.
Bill