- From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 19:01:54 -0600
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Adam Barth wrote: > > 1) It looks like the disposition-type is actually optional, even > though it's required by the grammar. > There's nothing wrong with C-D for HTTP having stricter requirements than general-purpose MIME C-D. Over time, browsers would no longer need to support servers which don't send it. I'd support changing the draft language to deprecate treating it as optional. > > 2) It looks like the user agent is supposed to URL-decode the > filename: > > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="abc%20de.pdf" > => abc de.pdf > > Appendix C.4 seems to indicate that that this is implemented by IE and > Chrome. From the comments in the file referenced above, it seems this > is important for the Asian market. > While that may be a valid stakeholder concern, what about all the times I've used wget to dump a website from a Windows server to a UNIX server? In which case I specifically don't want the spec instructing the user agent whether or not to decode; it could be a CLI option. User agent != browser, browser market concerns aren't always relevant to how HTTP is used in reality. -Eric
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 01:02:40 UTC