- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:22:15 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 03.10.2010 21:21, Adam Barth wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> The site I worked on (an SAP content management system) indeed will not >>> work >>> with Chrome, unless it has been fixed since Chrome came out (which I >>> doubt >>> because that system is in "maintenance mode"). It will send the >>> RFC2231-encoded parameter, and Chrome will not "get" the "filename*" >>> parameter. If RFC 2231 support was added in Chrome, the problem would >>> simply >>> go away with no server change being required. >> >> I don't think anyone has opposed adding RFC 2231 support. > > Well, IE has since 2003, and Chrome since it came out. I am confused. Aren't we talking about syntax like the following? Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*=UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates I'm happy talk to twist the arm of anyone on the Chrome team who doesn't think we should implement that syntax. Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:23:15 UTC