- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:13:13 +1100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think I agree this can be closed -- we seem to have established that we don't want mandatory error handling. On 02/11/2010, at 7:49 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 02:13:47 UTC