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

Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:32:39 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <g3g4d9$re2$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> It seems that certain vendors do not "get" that RFC1806 was updated
> by RFC2183, which in turn was updated by RFC2231 (defining I18N).
 
> So I think we need to
 
> 1) s/1806/2183/g (this is editorial, methinks)

+1

> 2) Clarify that I18N is defined in by RFC2231

+2

> 3) Specify a profile of RFC2231 that makes sense for 
>    Content-Disposition as used over HTTP (as opposed to
>    mail), such as:

Generally, not only for Content-Disposition "experiments",
right ?

> 3a) No Continuations 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.3>)

+1  Wow, I only saw "greenbytes" and thought that you are talking
    about an editor's copy of one of the 2616bis parts.  And was
    completely confused why you apparently specify the same idea
    as RFC 2231 announced as *no* continuations.  Finally I saw
    that this just your HTMLified copy of RFC 2231. 

> 3b) Support 
* <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.4>,
> but only use UTF-8 encoding in producers.

-1  Tiny mazes, all different... :-(  The us-ascii example is
    perfect, and if 2616bis sticks to its iso-8859-1 "default"
    this relic and its more popular windows-1252 incarnation are
    also plausible.  I can see a "strongly RECOMMENDED", but no
    MUST utf-8 here, and "default" iso-8859-1 there, and a big
    mess everywhere.   

 Frank
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 11:31:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:48 GMT