- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:18:39 +0200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote:
> So I think we need to
>
> 1) s/1806/2183/g (this is editorial, methinks)
Done in <http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/269>.
> 2) Clarify that I18N is defined in by RFC2231
>
> 3) Specify a profile of RFC2231 that makes sense for Content-Disposition
> as used over HTTP (as opposed to mail), such as:
>
> 3a) No Continuations
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.3>)
>
> 3b) Support
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2231.html#rfc.section.3>, but only
> use UTF-8 encoding in producers.
> ...
and 4)
Copy over more of RFC2183, for instance "disposition=inline" (which I
think the major browsers understand).
An alternative to all this would be to throw out Content-Disposition,
and move it ("C-D as used as HTTP header") into a separate spec. If we
did that, would we want to make at a WG work item?
BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 16:19:26 UTC