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.

I added


which fails for FF3/Chrome/Chrome9 (I see shared bugs :-), and


which fails just for FF3.

> ...
>> Not to mention that this is utterly silly, if you have "x<name>=..."
>> this would be handled as if the value had a `name` parameter with the
>> empty string as value, as opposed to the semantically correct result,
>> which would be "there is no `name` parameter".
> Perhaps this is another good test case to add to the suite.  I'm
> willing to believe this behavior isn't necessary, but I'd like to look
> at some more evidence before changing it.
> ...

I'm not totally sure what exactly to test; please elaborate.

>> And as you lack higher
>> level control logic to actually separate parameters, this results in
>> `example="filename=example.txt"` having the filename `example.txt"`,
>> as opposed to the correct result, namely that there is no filename.
> Sounds like another good test case.


failing in Chrome only.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 12:27:29 UTC