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

RE: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:53:18 +0000
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2A4D592594EA4DE7A2CA37322E450D54@T60>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> That's true. But what we need is something that also works 
> for "äöü߀" & friends *reliably*.
> 
> Reminding UAs to implement RFC2231 without stating that they 
> really need also support the UTF-8 encoding seems like a bad idea.

I don't see how Microsoft can change IE's parsing of Content-Disposition to match RFC2231 without breaking backward compatibility with itself. If they refuse to change then this change to the spec would be actively harmful as it would mislead readers into doing the wrong thing >80% of the time. Documenting the *real* current situation would be much more useful, even though the current situation sucks; at least if people know the problem they can try to work around it. Especially, it would be great if there were some public test cases that describe the problem.

Personally, I think the most realistic solution to the problem is a new Content-Filename header field that uses whatever encoding of UTF-8 is standardized in HTTPbis. If Content-Filename isn't provided then fall back to  Content-Disposition. *Every* browser can implement that logic without breaking compatibility with its earlier versions.

Additionally, I think you could solve the problem in HTML 5 by requesting a new filename attribute to <a> and a target="_download". 

Regards,
Brian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 20:05:29 GMT

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