Re: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter)

Brian Smith wrote:
> The IE encoding is a lot better. In order to support clients using it in requests, I have to be able to parse the filename, and the IE syntax is much, much easier to parse than the 2231-based syntax. Why not file a bug report against IE so that it works all the time?

The IE encoding is an ad-hoc solution. It doesn't work interoperably (it 
depends on IE's locale), while RFC2231 works out of the box.

Why would anybody (except Microsoft) want to standardize the IE solution?

Doesn't compute.

> I also agree with the others that this isn't something that should be standardized in HTML, because it is not specific to HTML. I am implementing support for this (in both requests and responses) to my AtomPub implementations, for example. A seperate RFC for a *HTTP* Content-Disposition mechanism makes much more sense for use by non-HTML software. Make the IE syntax for the "filename" parameter the standard, and allow an additional "filename*" parameter for backwards-compatibility with UA's that implement the 2231 mechanism.

Well, Microsoft hasn't implemented RFC2231. What makes you think that 
they would implement another RFC, when history tells that they just 
ignore it?

BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 19:06:01 UTC