- From: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 21:17:36 +0200 (MET DST)
- To: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@sci.wfbr.edu>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Foteos Macrides: > >Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU> wrote: >>koen@win.tue.nl (Koen Holtman) wrote: >>>[...] >>>Well, this is not really a case where we have to agree on what the most >>>correct way is. 19.6.1 documents current practice, it is not >>>normative, so if anything, it should give hints about what to do with >>>current browsers. >> >> That section references only RFC 1806, which describes the >>"attachment" and "inline" disposition types. My recollection of >>a long-ago message from Lou is that Netscape based its implementation >>on the file upload RFC's "file" disposition type. What is the >>appropriate disposition type to use in HTTP Content-Disposition >>headers and META elements, and can information about that be included >>in 19.6.1? > > I tracked down Lou's message (appended) and was remembering >it correctly. So, how about some current practice guidance/hints >about that? I just traced some references, and the file-upload RFC (rfc1867) mentions a `file' disposition type but uses `attachment' in its examples. draft-moore-mime-cdisp-01.txt mentions only `inline' and `attachment'. Based on this, I think that keeping the section as is, with `attachment', is best. > Fote Koen.
Received on Thursday, 7 August 1997 12:19:09 UTC