Re: Content-Disposition

Frank Ellermann wrote:
>> -> I'm tempted to leave it as defined in registry, so with
>> no entry for the standard status
> 
> That's cheating, and might not pass.  Just pick something
> that fits, "standard" or "obsoleted" or "deprecated", same
> idea as for the RFC.ietf-usefor-usefor entries.  From what
> you wrote my vague impression is that "Content-Disposition"
> in HTTP is a case like "Lines" for NNTP => "deprecated".

I don't think we can deprecate it. After all, it's in wide use, and 
widely implemented, and there's no replacement.

So, saying "informational" probably would make sense.

BR, Julian