- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:55:10 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >> It's good for telling people where to go when they need it. It may not >> be sufficient for ensuring that recipients actually implement it. > > Yes, I had that feeling too, but failed to find a good way to express > requirements. > >> Also note that RFC 2231 encoding affects the grammar. > > What's standard practice -- to explicitly call out the * form in the ABNF? There is no good standard practice, and this is why interoperability sucks for Content-Disposition. The precise way to do it to make it explicit in the ABNF. Such as: ( "title" "=" quoted-string ) | ( "title*" "=" enc2231-string ) where enc2231-string = <extended-value, see RFC 2231, Section 7> >> That being said, I already volunteered to profile and clarify RFC 2231 >> for use in HTTP, but I'm not there yet >> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-latest.html>). >> >> >> If we can reach agreement that it's sufficient to support only some >> parts of RFC 2231 (no continuations, no charsets other than ISO8859-1 >> and UTF-8), I can try to condense that statement into a very short >> paragraph. > > > Please do. Will do. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 09:55:52 UTC