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

Re: Content-Disposition next steps

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:01:25 +1100
Cc: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜)" <jungshik@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B90EC6A5-9BD9-4E69-8479-A2DC7399A567@mnot.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Yes, I'm passingly familiar with the phenomenon. ;)

What I meant was that browsers can stage the changes over a few versions (as you suggest), e.g., bringing up a console warning and talking about it in their roadmap.

If desirable, we could reflect this in the spec by deprecating it and suggesting a warning now, and then disallowing it when the document progresses on the standards track.

Cheers,


On 16/12/2010, at 5:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> Because (if I read the original message correctly -- please correct me if I'm wrong) they're sniffing the UA to do it, and if they do that, they'll presumably adapt their sniffing based upon changes in the browser market (as anyone who sniffs and believes that they don't have to monitor the market tends to get bitten, hard).
> 
> Typically in cases like this you want to get sites to change before breaking them. Often it takes surprisingly long for changes like this to get implemented and pushed in a large-scale site, even for a seemingly simple change.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>> On 16/12/2010, at 5:27 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>> 
>>> Why doesn't it affect the spec?  It seems like implementations won't
>>> want to remove support for a feature that's used on a site as popular
>>> as Gmail.
>>> 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>> Perhaps, but it depends on how Google sniffs the UAs. And I don't think it affects the spec.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 16/12/2010, at 9:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 15.12.2010 21:19, Jungshik Shin (신정식, 申政湜) wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Before rushing to remove it (as an optional 'fallback') , I'd like to
>>>>>> have some 'numbers' about what web servers do (FYI, some Google products
>>>>>> emit RFC 2047 for Firefox and Chrome at the moment, but I guess Google
>>>>>> has to switch over to RFC 5987 for Firefox and Chrome). I'm not sure
>>>>>> whether the cost of supporting it is larger than the benefit.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Indeed. GMail seems to use RFC2047-encoding (when saving an attachment with non-ASCII characters in the filename) for Firefox (and likely for Chrome as well).
>>>>> 
>>>>> So it's unlikely that UAs can remove this until this get fixed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards, Julian
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 07:01:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:34 GMT