- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:35:13 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 03.10.2010 22:22, Adam Barth wrote: > 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. Please do (and no, I don't think I raised a bug report for those after seeing the response on <http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=118>, but see comment #5 over there). Note that I asked multiple browser vendors not implementing RFC 2231 a few years ago, and they complained about vagueness (which encodings do we need to support?) and unneeded complexity (continuation lines). We fixed those in RFC 5987. Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:35:53 UTC