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

Re: Factoring out Content-Disposition (i123), was: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:45:19 -0500
Message-ID: <48A606FF.9060902@rowe-clan.net>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
CC: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Brian Smith wrote:
>>
>> That being said, you can't always avoid it, such as in 
>> Content-Disposition or Slug.
> 
> Since the primary (only?) use case for RFC2231 in HTTP is the
> Content-Disposition header, why not just fold this into the spec. that you
> are writing for Content-Disposition? URI references are already
> ASCII-encoded IRIs, and Atom's Slug header field already has its own
> mechanism for handling non-ASCII text.

Or more to the point, TEXT* is defined as RFC2047 charset-encoded values,
so defining Content-Disposition filename as TEXT* solves the ascii/iso/uft8
puzzle.

The issue with filename is that it can (and often does) vary from the
resource name, e.g. download.aspx v.s. thatdocument.pdf.
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 22:46:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT