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

Re: Content-Disposition next steps

From: 신정식, 申政湜 <jungshik@google.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:29:09 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinx1gu3RW0pVz9kwy0rifZEdsJCmNxX4o3QKU-J@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 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).
>

Yes, gmail sniffs the UA and emits RFC 2047 for Firefox and Chrome and RFC
5987 (RFC 2231) for Opera. The change to emit RFC 5987 for Opera was made
rather recently (before that, non-ASCII characters were just tunred to
question marks for Opera). Anyway, in case of gmail, it's relatively easy to
make (at least I used to know where the code is and I hope it's still there
for me to make a quick change).  Some other google products just turns
non-ASCII characters to question marks for all the UAs (e.g. Google Docs)
:-)   Obviously, it's a rather embarrasing bug to fix.


> 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.
>

Yes, sites have to change before RFC 2047 support is dropped in Chrome and
Firefox.


Jungshik





> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 18:29:40 GMT

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