- From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 00:11:22 +0100
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > As RFC2616 doesn't really include Content-Disposition, nor requires > RFC2231, it doesn't seem to be in our charter to do something. The MIME registry points to RFC 4229, which points to RFC 2616, and from RFC 2616 I find RFC 1806 as amended by RFC 2183. For obscure reasons RFC 2183 was updated by RFC 2184, and later by RFC 2231. RFC 2184 was later obsoleted by RFC 2231. That's rather confusing, but with 1806 < 2183 < 2184 < 2231 < 2616 I'd say it's a bug in RFC 2616. FWIW, RFC 2183 and RFC 2231 are PS, RFC 1806 is or was an experiment. What is the idea of a Content-Disposition header field in HTTP/1.1 ? Why should a filename parameter make more sense than the relevant part of the URL, with its own security considerations in RFC 2616 ? Frank
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2008 23:09:29 UTC