22 messages in org.w3.public-htmlRe: UA support for Content-Dispositio...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 6:48 am | |
| Lachlan Hunt | Mar 14, 2008 7:42 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 7:50 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 7:54 am | |
| Lachlan Hunt | Mar 14, 2008 8:01 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 8:17 am | |
| Michael A. Puls II | Mar 14, 2008 9:25 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 9:38 am | |
| Brian Smith | Mar 14, 2008 11:45 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 14, 2008 12:04 pm | |
| Maciej Stachowiak | Mar 15, 2008 10:54 pm | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 16, 2008 4:02 am | |
| Maciej Stachowiak | Mar 16, 2008 11:34 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 16, 2008 12:00 pm | |
| Maciej Stachowiak | Mar 16, 2008 3:46 pm | |
| Karl Dubost | Mar 16, 2008 10:56 pm | |
| Leif Halvard Silli | Mar 17, 2008 11:45 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 17, 2008 2:35 pm | |
| Brian Smith | Mar 18, 2008 9:01 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 18, 2008 9:58 am | |
| Brian Smith | Mar 21, 2008 9:24 am | |
| Julian Reschke | Mar 21, 2008 5:07 pm |
| Subject: | Re: UA support for Content-Disposition header (filename parameter) | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Julian Reschke (juli...@gmx.de) | |
| Date: | Mar 14, 2008 12:04:33 pm | |
| List: | org.w3.public-html | |
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