Re: Using Content-Encoding and Content-Disposition together

On Aug 7, 12:27am, Klaus Weide wrote:
> RFC 1808 and also draft-moore-mime-cdisp-01.txt say this:
>    Disposition parameters are valid for all dispositions.  (In contrast
>    to [RFC 1521] content-type parameters, which are defined on a per-
>    content-type basis.) Thus, for example, the `filename' parameter
>    still means the name of the file to which the part should be written,
>    even if the disposition itself is unrecognized.
> So it seems that Netscape's client follows the RFC in that regard (or did
> so, at the time of writing).
> Use of Content-Disposition in file uploads is a different topic, I think.
> If a file upload uses this header, it is probably within a
> multipart/form-data structure, and thereby out of scope for the HTTP
> protocol.(?)
> By the way, is Content-Disposition really a response-header?
> It seems to make more sense to say it is an entity-header.
>         Klaus
>-- End of excerpt from Klaus Weide

In past mail conversations with Netscape developers, Netscape (up to 3.01, I
haven't tried 4.0) only recognizes the Content-Disposition header if and only
if the Content-Type is Octet-stream.  Otherwise the browser tries to make-up a
filename based on the basename of the current URL.

As for C-D in a multipart, I do not see where it is out of scope.  The headers
are in an alternate delivery mechanism that is supported by by the community.

Kevin J. Dyer					Draper Laboratory  MS 23.
Email: <>		        555 Tech. Sq.
Phone: 617-258-4962				Cambridge, MA 02139
FAX: 617-258-2121
      "If the women don't find you handsome, they should       Red
       at least find you handy."                               Green

Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 06:12:25 UTC