- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:50:53 +0100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
OK, here's a summary of what changes have been done so far compared to draft 03 -- these are not published as draft yet; see diff-marked version at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest-from-previous.diff.html> and full text at <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest.html>: 1) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/243> Added a minor clarification that ISO-8859-1 *only* works in quoted-string (I know Björn is still unhappy, but at least this adds more precision). 2) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/252> Stated that modification-date *is* supported by some UAs (-> Konqueror). 3) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/253> Clarify implied LWS rule. 4) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/258> Rephrase a sentence not to use passive voice. 5) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/260> We agreed to WONTFIX this. 6) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/261> We agreed to WONTFIX this. 7) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/262> Mark has proposed to close this without changes; do we need more feedback? 8) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/263> Clarified the subsection that describes somewhat the percent-unescaping strategy of IE and Chrome. 9) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/264> Clarified that the RFC5987 language tagging isn't very useful for filenames. 10) <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/265> Clarified that this spec is not about C-D in HTTP *payloads*. The following issue remains open: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/259> ...and I have made a rough proposal in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2010OctDec/0450.html>. I think the current changes are an improvement over draft -03, and would like to submit it soonish (independently of what we do with respect to issue 259). Feedback appreciated, Julian
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 12:51:36 UTC