- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:02:09 +0200
On 2011-06-03 14:23, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote: > Am 03.06.2011, 10:23 Uhr, schrieb Eduard Pascual <herenvardo at gmail.com>: > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler >> <dennis at efjot.de> wrote: >>> By the way, another point that we have to discuss: >>> >>> Which tag should a browser favor. The one in HTTP or the other one in >>> HTML? >> >> Is that really worth discussing? HTTP >> HTML: whomever provides the >> file should have the last say about how the file needs to be served, >> regardless of what a site referencing to it may suggest. >> >> Furthermore, when links point to URIs with any scheme other than >> "http:", whatever the scheme defines about how to deliver the file >> takes precedence. >> >> Thus, only in the lack of an actual Content-Disposition header, or its >> equivalent on some other scheme, would the attribute given by the link >> be used, just like an additional fallback step before whatever the >> UA's default behaviour would be. > > I agree that I shouldn't even have asked since this is actually a no- > brainer. I can't think of any good reason to overwrite the http header > with the html attribute. > > Alright, so, moving on... > >> This grants the ability for any content provider to use an explicit >> "Content-Disposition: inline" HTTP header to effectively block >> "download links" from arbitrary sources. > > True. Is it still so that some browsers ignore the "filename" part > of a content-disposition if an "inline" disposition is used? Yes, see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#inlwithasciifilename>. Apparently only Firefox gets this right. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 06:02:09 UTC