Re: [metadataInURI-31] Update on Use of Metadata in URIs Draft

Just a couple of data points that might be of value, Noah ...

On 10/23/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Bob sees image on screen, right clicks to save, winds up with executable,
> is unhappy."

FWIW, I know that for clickable images, both Firefox and IE present
right-click options to "Save Link" as well as "Save image".

> The only place URI confusion seems to come in is if we additionally assume a
> browser that, in violation of Web architecture (though in keeping with all
> too common practice), blindly preserves the URI suffix when writing to the
> OS filesystem.

I don't believe that's common practice any longer.  IE was patched a
few years ago to save to disk using a file suffix that corresponded to
the media type the file was served with (rather than using
Content-Disposition or the file name).  I believe that everybody else
does this too now.

FWIW, I think this was the bulletin;

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS01-058.mspx

Cheers,

Mark.