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: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:56:33 -0500
Message-ID: <48A68831.6020907@rowe-clan.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Julian Reschke wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>> ...
> 
> Doesn't work for me. We *know* that RFC2231-encoding already is in use, 
> and that 2 out of 4 UAs have been supporting it for a long time.
> 
> Why invent something new? How do you deploy it?

Ok, color me confused; RFC 2616 is quite a bit older than your draft.

>> The issue with filename is that it can (and often does) vary from the
>> resource name, e.g. download.aspx v.s. thatdocument.pdf.
> 
> Yes. That's one of the reasons Content-Disposition is useful.

Ack.  I don't think that solving the encoding issue is tangential to the
problem of a persistent local name for a resource.  Although I would hope
we can kill C-D's assertion that a resource is inline or not, that has and
forever will be b/shit.  What a user agent chooses to render is it's own
prerogative.

Bill
Received on Saturday, 16 August 2008 07:57:24 GMT

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