Re: Updated Content-Disposition error handling proposal on the wiki

On Dec 13, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Adam Barth wrote:

> I've updated the proposal for Content-Disposition error handling on the wiki:
> I think Julian and I are in agreement by-and-large, except for whether
> to apply \-decoding or %-decoding to the filename parameter value.

In brief, what are the arguments for and against \-decoding and %encoding respctively?

I notice that the ultimate decoding doesn't include the steps where the encoding of the referer is tried, or where an encoding specific to the user's locale is tried. I understand the reasons either of these rules might be problematic to put into the standard, but do we expect that browsers will be willing to drop them? Is it reasonably Web-compatible to do so? If we expect implementations to keep doing these things, then I think the proposal needs to at least give implementations license to try other encodings, even if it doesn't require it. Better to incompletely reflect reality than to require things contrary to what we expect to be implemented.


Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 17:29:51 UTC