- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:01:56 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
* Julian Reschke wrote: >> I don't think sending exactly the same value would make it useful to >> send both parameters, it would rather seem filename could be a fallback, >> which would imply a different, perhaps less sophisticated, value. > >Not sure what you're referring to here. Please elaborate. It did not occur to me someone might send different responses based on whether they believe the client supports `filename*`, so I read the text as referring to the values of the parameters and not the whole header. Clearly using the same value for the two parameters is not useful. >> So perhaps something along the lines of "The parameters 'filename' and >> 'filename*' differ only in ... wider repertoire of characters ... fall- >> back ..." > >I now have: > > The parameters "filename" and "filename*" differ only in that > "filename*" uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use > of characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set > ([ISO-8859-1]). When both "filename" and "filename*" are present, a > recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" - this will > make it possible to send the same header value to clients that do not > support "filename*". I still think the reference to ISO-8859-1 should be avoided (refer instead to characters not normally allowed in HTTP headers, or simply a wider repertoire of characters) and the last part should emphasize that the filename parameter can be used as fallback value for older clients, to avoid the confusion above if nothing else. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 2010 06:02:29 UTC