- From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 13:49:45 -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 1:35 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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). I basically agree with Jungshik Shin that we'd be better off with only UTF8 and skipping the language decoration, but I'm not sure it's worth fighting about. > 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. Great. I don't have time to write the patch myself, but I'd be happy to review a patch written by you or someone else that implements this behavior. Adam
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 20:50:53 UTC