W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Proposal for i111 / i63

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:34:48 +0200
Message-ID: <480735D8.7030403@gmx.de>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'Mark Nottingham' <mnot@mnot.net>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Brian Smith wrote:
> ...
>>> * p3, B.1:
>>> Old:
>>>> filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string
>>> New:
>>> """
>>> filename-parm = "filename" "=" quoted-string | encoded-word
>>> """
> 
> RFC2047 says "An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT be used in parameter of a MIME
> Content-Type or Content-Disposition field, or in any structured field
> body except within a 'comment' or 'phrase'." That is what RFC2231 is
> for. Also, this is not a backward-compatible change. Different products
> use differing syntaxes for the filename parameter, and nobody is using
> RFC2047. See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/0113.html. I
> suggest to make a separate issue for this.
> ...

I agree that we should treat this as a separate issue. It's different 
from all the other I18N use cases in that non-ISO filenames are indeed 
used in practice, and at least two UAs agree that RFC2231 is the way to go.

Mark, should I open a separate issue for that?

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:35:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:47 GMT