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

Re: Content-Disposition next steps

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 00:19:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF6D806.6000801@gmx.de>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
CC: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 01.12.2010 23:53, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
>> Not to mention that it's silly to treat `x=y; filename=example.txt` as if
>> it had an unrecognized disposition type and should thus be handled as
>> "attachment", which, say, Internet Explorer and Opera don't do, when
>> you treat plain `filename=example.txt` as having no disposition type.
>
> Perhaps Julian would be willing to add this case to his test suite?
> Silliness isn't one of the criteria I've applied.
> ...

Will do tomorrow.

>> I can't really make heads or tails of the rest of your proposal, for
>> instance, if you go by the processing rules already in the draft, you
>> would not need to discuss quote marks, but you seem to have your own
>> rules for processing parameters and parameter values, in which case
>> you would need to discuss quote marks, but your proposal does not.
>
> It's possible I've screwed up handling quote marks.  Do you have a
> specific test case you're worried about?  I was surprised as well that
> I didn't need to mention quote marks.

That's probably because Chrome doesn't handle quoted-string properly: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#attwithasciifnescapedchar>

> ...


Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:20:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:33 GMT