- From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote: > - RFC1867 is obsoleted by RFC 2854 Oh, thanks, I hadn't noticed. But I think would rather say that technically it has been obsoleted in parts by RFC 2854 and in parts by RFC 2388. > - RFC 2388 seems to be a bit confused about what encoding to use, it > mentions both RFC 2047 (which I think is a bug), RFC 2184 and RFC 2231 (2231 > obsoleted 2184) -- I think this should be addressed with an erratum (Larry, > are you reading this...?) Right, but no matter which MIME specs it should refer to it considers the headers to be MIME (as opposed to HTTP-like). Thus it seems RFC2231 _should_ be our guide. > - the Apache commons fileupload library doesn't seem to attempt to handle > either RFC 2047 nor RFC 2231 encoding So how does byte codes within file names above 128 get included? Or are those bytes just skipped? > - IE appears to send non-ASCII characters as raw ISO, at least if the source > page used that encoding, This is similar to what curl currently does and what initiated my investigation into this area. It simply has no notion of encoding and passes on whatever the user pass in as "file name". Someone detected that curl thus didn't do the upload the same way one of the browser did. Now I realize it will be hard to mimic those without getting my brain to hurt... > - Firefox appears to escape with &#ddd; notation. I have a hard time to see how HTML encoding can be the right thing here. -- / daniel.haxx.se
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 12:11:35 UTC