- From: Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 15:46:49 +0000
On 6/3/11, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010 > > When saving, it would be good to use something like "Progress report of > Q1 2010" as the filename. But that's not "part of the URI" in any sense. > So you're suggesting using the title as the filename. In that case, the <a> element has a @title attribute already. <a href="http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010" title="Progress report of Q1 2010">progress report</a> > Note that some browsers will do weird parsing of the query params to > attempt to extract a "useful filename". That seems strictly worse than > just using Content-Disposition. > That's slightly better than just using the last non-empty path component, though. But yes, in the general case, the filename should be extracted from the title. Note that filenames being verbose by default is a good thing (to avoid accidental collisions). The user can provide short, easy-to-type filenames that he can remember himself. > I strongly disagree. I think browsers that use the Content-Disposition > filename for "attachment" but not "inline" are just buggy and should be > fixed. > FWIW MSIE9 seems to honor the filename hint with inline (contrary to the test results mentioned earlier in the thread). > Of course it sounds like your position is that they should not use the > filename for "attachment" either... (in which case you disagree not only > with me, but with most of the web). > ... but agree with me. The filename hint is useful for providing filename extensions. Honoring these irrespective of the Content-Type is dangerous. I recommend browsers strip the first dot and all following characters from filename hints - but then they could just as well ignore it.
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 08:46:49 UTC