W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Content-Disposition (new issue?)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:36:34 +0200
Message-ID: <48836992.6010702@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org


So far, I didn't see any feedback on this.

In the meantime I noticed that Content-Disposition really is a second 
rate header in RFC2616:

- it isn't mentioned in "7.1 Entity Header Fields" 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.7.1>), and

- more importantly, it doesn't appear in RFC 2068 at all (so how did it 
get into the Draft Standard?)

Considering that, it's seems best to remove all mentions of C-D from 
Part 3, and to create a separate spec that describes the use of 
Content-Disposition within HTTP.

Feedback appreciated,


Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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 Sunday, 20 July 2008 16:37:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:17 UTC