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

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.