Re: Content-Disposition next steps

On 01.12.2010 23:53, Adam Barth wrote:
> ...
>> Not to mention that it's silly to treat `x=y; filename=example.txt` as if
>> it had an unrecognized disposition type and should thus be handled as
>> "attachment", which, say, Internet Explorer and Opera don't do, when
>> you treat plain `filename=example.txt` as having no disposition type.
> Perhaps Julian would be willing to add this case to his test suite?
> Silliness isn't one of the criteria I've applied.
> ...

Will do tomorrow.

>> I can't really make heads or tails of the rest of your proposal, for
>> instance, if you go by the processing rules already in the draft, you
>> would not need to discuss quote marks, but you seem to have your own
>> rules for processing parameters and parameter values, in which case
>> you would need to discuss quote marks, but your proposal does not.
> It's possible I've screwed up handling quote marks.  Do you have a
> specific test case you're worried about?  I was surprised as well that
> I didn't need to mention quote marks.

That's probably because Chrome doesn't handle quoted-string properly: 

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 23:20:15 UTC