- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:18:55 +0200
- To: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
- CC: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>> >>> Or more to the point, TEXT* is defined as RFC2047 charset-encoded >>> values, >>> so defining Content-Disposition filename as TEXT* solves the >>> ascii/iso/uft8 >>> puzzle. >>> ... >> >> Doesn't work for me. We *know* that RFC2231-encoding already is in >> use, and that 2 out of 4 UAs have been supporting it for a long time. >> >> Why invent something new? How do you deploy it? > > Ok, color me confused; RFC 2616 is quite a bit older than your draft. But RFC2616 is not clear about whether it allows RFC2047-style encoding in parameter values. Again, see <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/111> and <http://greenbytes.de/tech/httpbis/issue-111.xhtml>. Furthermore, you may have missed the fact that my draft doesn't define anything new; it just re-states a subset of RFC2231 (which BTW does predate RFC2616), which already is implemented in several UAs. Turning it around: do you have any evidence of HTTP clients supporting RFC2047 encoding in parameter values? If yes, which of the encoding methods defined in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2047#section-4>? With what character sets? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 16 August 2008 08:19:41 UTC