W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1996

Re: content-disposition header

From: Rens Troost <rens@name.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:24:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199610091324.JAA09881@engine.name.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, sdorner@qualcomm.com, rens@century.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1728
> Should content-disposition from RFC 1806 be considered for HTTP?

Im alredy using it in some HTTP bulk transfer applications, and it
certainly seems to work. the inline/attachment distinction is a bit
meaningless, but it's a nice standard way to send filename and other

Im not on http-wg, so please CC me if there's any new params proposed
or the like that would make it HTTP-friendly.

Ive been hideously delinquent in cutting the next version of the RFC;
Ill get off my posterior now.

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 09:10:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:18 UTC