On 4/10/11, Glenn Maynard <glenn at zewt.org> wrote: >> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027455.html > > A big +1 to the proposal in this thread, to allow specifying > Content-Disposition behavior in anchors. <a download=filename.txt> would > have the effect of adding (or overriding) the header "Content-Disposition: > attachment; filename=filename.txt". > > It would mean I'd no longer need to use server-side hacks to cause > Content-Disposition to be sent for download links, eg. where "?download=1" > adds the C-D header. > Right. As an end-user I ask: Does a web developer publishing links to resources have a say as to whether I render aforementioned resource immediately, write it to disk or both? > I also just now had to implement a server-side script that receives base64 > file data and a filename in parameters, and responds by echoing it back. > That's an ugly hack to allow client-side data to be saved to disk, and > doesn't work with serverless web apps. This would be fixed, allowing both > data: URLs and File API object URLs as download links. > Better yet, File API could have an API for writing blobs to files.Received on Sunday, 10 April 2011 10:59:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:03 GMT