- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:59:27 +0000
- To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Brian Smith wrote: > Julian Reschke wrote: >> That's true. But what we need is something that also works >> for "äöü߀" & friends *reliably*. >> >> Reminding UAs to implement RFC2231 without stating that they >> really need also support the UTF-8 encoding seems like a bad idea. > > I don't see how Microsoft can change IE's parsing of Content-Disposition to match RFC2231 without breaking backward compatibility with itself. If they refuse to change then this change to the spec would be actively harmful as it would mislead readers into doing the wrong thing >80% of the time. Documenting the *real* current situation would be much more useful, even though the current situation sucks; at least if people know the problem they can try to work around it. Especially, it would be great if there were some public test cases that describe the problem. Oh, they can trivially. Otherwise I wouldn't even try to make progress here. The RFC 2231 encoding can be trivially detected (as opposed to the RFC 2047 madness), and does not overlap with what IE does today. > ... > Additionally, I think you could solve the problem in HTML 5 by requesting a new filename attribute to <a> and a target="_download". > ... That's <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5773>, which reminded me to look at C-D again. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 20:05:36 UTC