W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2008

RE: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:45:27 -0700
To: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008801c88603$93ffae10$4001a8c0@T60>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Michael A. Puls II wrote:
> > Reminds me of this thread: <
> > http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=118971 >
> > 
> > The solution at the end was to detect IE via the user agent
> header, do
> > IE's way for the filename and do the RFC 2231 way for others. But, 
> > that's assumes UTF-8 URL encoding is turned on in IE.
> 
> Right, and that's what we did back then. That worked for FF users, IE 
> users in western countries, but not for Asian users.
> 
> > It'd be nice if IE supported the RFC 2231 way.
> 
> Right.
> 
> And, to get there, I think it would be good if HTML5 stated that as a 
> requirement.

The IE encoding is a lot better. In order to support clients using it in requests, I have to be able to parse the filename, and the IE syntax is much, much easier to parse than the 2231-based syntax. Why not file a bug report against IE so that it works all the time?

I also agree with the others that this isn't something that should be standardized in HTML, because it is not specific to HTML. I am implementing support for this (in both requests and responses) to my AtomPub implementations, for example. A seperate RFC for a *HTTP* Content-Disposition mechanism makes much more sense for use by non-HTML software. Make the IE syntax for the "filename" parameter the standard, and allow an additional "filename*" parameter for backwards-compatibility with UA's that implement the 2231 mechanism.

- Brian
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 18:46:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:13 GMT