Re: Content-Disposition

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> ...
> Reading it again, RFC 3864 from start to end tries to explain
> why *redefining* MIME Content-* header fields in individual
> protocols can be a seriously flawed idea.  And it says that
> the "status" for a permanent entry is set according to the
> primary document defining it.  
> 
> IMO for a standards track RFC the default should be "standard".
> Obviously it can be "deprecated" when the standard(s) say so,
> e.g., "Lines".  Maybe a standard can also say "informational",
> but I think it's not the intention of RFC 3834:
> 
> Forwarding to the message header list, Graham would know what
> RFC 3864 wanted, and if a minor twist is okay or confusing.
> ...

Thanks.

I just want to make sure that there is consistency; and RFC2616 
currently makes it clear that although it contains documentation about 
C-D, it's not to be considered part of the HTTP standard.

BR, Julian