W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1997

Re: Using Content-Encoding and Content-Disposition together

From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:17:36 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <199708071917.VAA09423@wsooti08.win.tue.nl>
To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/4107
Foteos Macrides:
>Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU> wrote:
>>koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote:
>>>Well, this is not really a case where we have to agree on what the most
>>>correct way is.  19.6.1 documents current practice, it is not
>>>normative, so if anything, it should give hints about what to do with
>>>current browsers.
>>	That section references only RFC 1806, which describes the
>>"attachment" and "inline" disposition types.  My recollection of
>>a long-ago message from Lou is that Netscape based its implementation
>>on the file upload RFC's "file" disposition type.  What is the
>>appropriate disposition type to use in HTTP Content-Disposition
>>headers and META elements, and can information about that be included
>>in 19.6.1?
>	I tracked down Lou's message (appended) and was remembering
>it correctly.  So, how about some current practice guidance/hints
>about that?

I just traced some references, and the file-upload RFC (rfc1867)
mentions a `file' disposition type but uses `attachment' in its
examples.  draft-moore-mime-cdisp-01.txt mentions only `inline' and
`attachment'.  Based on this, I think that keeping the section as is,
with `attachment', is best.

>				Fote

Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 12:19:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:20 UTC