W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 14:48:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4C92120F.3000208@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 16.09.2010 14:15, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis Working Group of the IETF.
> 	Title           : Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
> 	Author(s)       : J. Reschke
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 13
> 	Date            : 2010-09-16
> HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but
> points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard.  This
> specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
> Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
> aspects.
> ...


this is a new revision of draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp, defining the 
Content-Disposition header field as used in HTTP, replacing the 
definition in RFC 2616, and building on the encoding defined in the 
recently published RFC 5987.

Compared to -00, it addresses some the issues reported by Henrik and 
Björn (*) and also contains a few editorial fixes.

See <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123> for some 
background about why we decided to factor out Content-Disposition in the 
first place.

Note that Content-Disposition is widely implemented (test cases and 
report at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/>). What's new here is that 
we require support for the encoding defined RFC 5987, which currently 
only exists in Firefox, Konqueror and Opera. That being said, the spec 
suggests a backwards-compatible way to use that encoding.

At this point, the spec is complete and needs more review. Therefore it 
would be good if we could start a Working Group Last Call.

Best regards, Julian

(*) I did not address one of the problems raised by Björn for which I'd 
like to see more feedback; see 
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 12:48:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:48 UTC