Re: Content-Disposition filename encoding, was: IRIs, IDNAbis, and HTTP [i74]

On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 20:15 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> As RFC2616 doesn't really include Content-Disposition, nor requires 
> RFC2231, it doesn't seem to be in our charter to do something.

Correct. Content-Disposition is not part of HTTP/1.1 even if commonly
implemented.

> Any suggestions about what should be done here; except for waiting that 
> the remaining UA vendors just implement this?

I don't see much else that can be done. This header and how to apply
I18N to it is defined in the MIME world. And there the meaning of
Content-Disposition is defined by RFC2183 (header) + RFC2231 (I18N) +
errata.

We could mention 2231 in the informal reference to 2183 however, but
given that it's an informal reference and also official standards track
update addition to 2183 I don't see why this would be needed. But you
know the rules and guidelines on how to reference other RFCs better than
me.

Regards
Henrik