- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:28:03 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 2008-03-16 at 20:15 +0100, 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. Correct. Content-Disposition is not part of HTTP/1.1 even if commonly implemented. > Any suggestions about what should be done here; except for waiting that > the remaining UA vendors just implement this? I don't see much else that can be done. This header and how to apply I18N to it is defined in the MIME world. And there the meaning of Content-Disposition is defined by RFC2183 (header) + RFC2231 (I18N) + errata. We could mention 2231 in the informal reference to 2183 however, but given that it's an informal reference and also official standards track update addition to 2183 I don't see why this would be needed. But you know the rules and guidelines on how to reference other RFCs better than me. Regards Henrik
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 14:29:29 UTC