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

Issue 261: Check for requirements backing test cases, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:49:35 +0100
Message-ID: <4CCFD09F.5060707@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03#section-3.3
>> This section provides very little guidance about how to extract a file
>> name from the filename parameter.  For example, it fails to instruct
>> the user agent about how to handle the following test cases:
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwithasciifnescapedquote
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwithasciifilenamenqws
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwithutf8fnplain
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwithfnrawpctenca
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwith2filenames
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attfnbrokentoken
>> http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attbrokenquotedfn
> Ticket:
>    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/261
>> In particular, this document should define an algorithm that takes as
>> input a sequence of bytes obtained by parsing the Content-Disposition
>> header field value and returns a sequence of characters which is the
>> file name requested by the server.
> I'm treating that as editorial advice.

I'm not sure where to start :-)

Like it or not, the draft relies on the ABNF for parameter parsing, and 
delegates the filename* format to RFC 5987.

For valid header field instances this is supposed to be sufficient. If 
it's not, let's focus on details. Would it be helpful if I went through 
the valid header field instances in these test cases and explained how 
they parse?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 08:50:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:55 UTC