W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: %encoding in filename parameters. Re: repeated filename parameters, Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:22:15 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DMWJEWfFsgv3Pq5mYFWkorpHGRgdr5_JsvSYm@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 03.10.2010 21:21, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>  wrote:
>>> The site I worked on (an SAP content management system) indeed will not
>>> work
>>> with Chrome, unless it has been fixed since Chrome came out (which I
>>> doubt
>>> because that system is in "maintenance mode"). It will send the
>>> RFC2231-encoded parameter, and Chrome will not "get" the "filename*"
>>> parameter. If RFC 2231 support was added in Chrome, the problem would
>>> simply
>>> go away with no server change being required.
>>
>> I don't think anyone has opposed adding RFC 2231 support.
>
> Well, IE has since 2003, and Chrome since it came out.

I am confused.  Aren't we talking about syntax like the following?

Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates

I'm happy talk to twist the arm of anyone on the Chrome team who
doesn't think we should implement that syntax.

Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:23:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:28 GMT