source: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/03/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.txt @ 1056

Last change on this file since 1056 was 1056, checked in by julian.reschke@…, 9 years ago

Prepare publication of draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03 on 2010-10-25.

  • Property svn:eol-style set to native
  • Property svn:executable set to *
File size: 25.7 KB
Line 
1
2
3
4HTTPbis Working Group                                         J. Reschke
5Internet-Draft                                                greenbytes
6Updates: 2616 (if approved)                             October 25, 2010
7Intended status: Standards Track
8Expires: April 28, 2011
9
10
11           Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the
12                   Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
13                   draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03
14
15Abstract
16
17   HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but
18   points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard.  This
19   specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
20   Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
21   aspects.
22
23Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
24
25   This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content-
26   Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by
27   the IETF HTTPbis working group.  See also
28   <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>.
29
30   Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
31   group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org).  The current issues list is
32   at <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/
33   query?component=content-disp> and related documents (including fancy
34   diffs) can be found at <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
35
36   The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.7.
37
38Status of This Memo
39
40   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
41   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
42
43   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
44   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
45   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
46   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
47
48   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
49   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
50   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
51   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
52
53
54
55Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 1]
56
57Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
58
59
60   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011.
61
62Copyright Notice
63
64   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
65   document authors.  All rights reserved.
66
67   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
68   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
69   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
70   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
71   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
72   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
73   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
74   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
75   described in the Simplified BSD License.
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 2]
112
113Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
114
115
116Table of Contents
117
118   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
119   2.  Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
120   3.  Header Field Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
121     3.1.  Grammar  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
122     3.2.  Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
123     3.3.  Disposition Parameter: 'Filename'  . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
124     3.4.  Disposition Parameter: Extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
125     3.5.  Extensibility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
126   4.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
127   5.  Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
128   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
129   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
130     7.1.  Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter  . . . . . .  8
131     7.2.  Header Field Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
132   8.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
133   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
134     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
135     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
136   Appendix A.  Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition  . . . . . . . . 10
137   Appendix B.  Differences compared to RFC 2183  . . . . . . . . . . 10
138   Appendix C.  Alternative Approaches to Internationalization  . . . 11
139     C.1.  RFC 2047 Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
140     C.2.  Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
141     C.3.  Encoding Sniffing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
142     C.4.  Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before
143           publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
144   Appendix D.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
145                publication)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
146     D.1.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 12
147     D.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 13
148     D.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13
149     D.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13
150     D.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 . . . . . . . . . 13
151     D.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01 . . . . . . . . . 13
152     D.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 . . . . . . . . . 13
153   Index  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 3]
168
169Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
170
171
1721.  Introduction
173
174   HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in
175   Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of
176   the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5):
177
178      Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it
179      is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for
180      implementers.
181
182   This specification takes over the definition and registration of
183   Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP.  Based on interoperability
184   testing with existing User Agents, it fully defines a profile of the
185   features defined in the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
186   variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, and also clarifies
187   internationalization aspects.
188
1892.  Notational Conventions
190
191   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
192   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
193   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
194
195   This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section
196   2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for linear whitespace (LWS).
197
1983.  Header Field Definition
199
200   The Content-Disposition response header field is used to convey
201   additional information about how to process the response payload, and
202   also can be used to attach additional metadata, such as the filename
203   to use when saving the response payload locally.
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 4]
224
225Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
226
227
2283.1.  Grammar
229
230     content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":"
231                            disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm )
232
233     disposition-type    = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type
234                         ; case-insensitive
235     disp-ext-type       = token
236
237     disposition-parm    = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm
238
239     filename-parm       = "filename" "=" value
240                         | "filename*" "=" ext-value
241
242     disp-ext-parm       = token "=" value
243                         | ext-token "=" ext-value
244     ext-token           = <the characters in token, followed by "*">
245
246   Defined in [RFC2616]:
247
248     token       = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
249     value       = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6>
250
251   Defined in [RFC5987]:
252
253     ext-value   = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>
254
255   Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated; a header field value with
256   multiple instances of the same parameter SHOULD be treated as
257   invalid.
258
2593.2.  Disposition Type
260
261   If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively),
262   this indicates that the user agent should prompt the user to save the
263   response locally, rather than process it normally (as per its media
264   type).
265
266   On the other hand, if it matches "inline" (case-insensitively), this
267   implies default processing.
268
269   Unknown or unhandled disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way
270   as "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
271
2723.3.  Disposition Parameter: 'Filename'
273
274   The parameters "filename" and "filename*", to be matched case-
275   insensitively, provide information on how to construct a filename for
276
277
278
279Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 5]
280
281Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
282
283
284   storing the message payload.
285
286   Depending on the disposition type, this information might be used
287   right away (in the "save as..." interaction caused for the
288   "attachment" disposition type), or later on (for instance, when the
289   user decides to save the contents of the current page being
290   displayed).
291
292   The parameters "filename" and "filename*" differ only in that
293   "filename*" uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use
294   of characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set
295   ([ISO-8859-1]).
296
297   Many user agent implementations predating this specification do not
298   understand the "filename*" parameter.  Therefore, when both
299   "filename" and "filename*" are present in a single header field
300   value, recipients SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename".
301   This way, senders can avoid special-casing specific user agents by
302   sending both the more expressive "filename*" parameter, and the
303   "filename" parameter as fallback for legacy recipients (see Section 4
304   for an example).
305
306   It is essential that user agents treat the specified filename as
307   advisory only, thus be very careful in extracting the desired
308   information.  In particular:
309
310   o  When the value contains path separator characters, all but the
311      last segment SHOULD be ignored.  This prevents unintentional
312      overwriting of well-known file system location (such as "/etc/
313      passwd").
314
315   o  Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold
316      type information in the file system, but rely on filename
317      extensions instead.  Trusting the server-provided file extension
318      could introduce a privilege escalation when the saved file is
319      later opened (consider ".exe").  Thus, recipients need to ensure
320      that a file extension is used that is safe, optimally matching the
321      media type of the received payload.
322
323   o  Recipients are advised to strip or replace character sequences
324      that are known to cause confusion both in user interfaces and in
325      filenames, such as control characters and leading and trailing
326      whitespace.
327
328   o  Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a
329      special meaning in the file system or in shell commands, such as
330      "." and "..", "~", "|", and also device names.
331
332
333
334
335Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 6]
336
337Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
338
339
340      Note: Many user agents do not properly handle escape characters
341      when using the quoted-string form.  Furthermore, some user agents
342      erroneously try to perform unescaping of "percent" escapes (see
343      Appendix C.2), and thus might misinterpret filenames containing
344      the percent character followed by two hex digits.
345
3463.4.  Disposition Parameter: Extensions
347
348   To enable future extensions, unknown parameters SHOULD be ignored
349   (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
350
3513.5.  Extensibility
352
353   Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for
354   disposition types and disposition parameters.  This registry is
355   shared by different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME
356   and HTTP.  Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the
357   context of HTTP.
358
3594.  Examples
360
361   Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of
362   "example.html":
363
364   Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=example.html
365
366   Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't
367   present, but to remember the filename "example.html" for a subsequent
368   save operation:
369
370     Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "example.html"
371
372   Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "an example":
373
374   Content-Disposition: Attachment; Filename*=UTF-8'en'an%20example
375
376   Note that this example uses the extended encoding defined in
377   [RFC5987] to specify that the natural language of the filename is
378   English, and also to encode the space character which is not allowed
379   in the token production.
380
381   Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename containing the
382   Unicode character U+20AC (EURO SIGN):
383
384     Content-Disposition: attachment;
385                          filename*= UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates
386
387   Here, the encoding defined in [RFC5987] is also used to encode the
388
389
390
391Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 7]
392
393Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
394
395
396   non-ISO-8859-1 character.
397
398   Same as above, but adding the "filename" parameter for compatibility
399   with user agents not implementing RFC 5987:
400
401     Content-Disposition: attachment;
402                          filename="EURO rates";
403                          filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates
404
405   Note: as of October 2010, those user agents that do not support the
406   RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename".
407   Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the
408   "filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs
409   first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon.
410
4115.  Internationalization Considerations
412
413   The "filename*" parameter (Section 3.3), using the encoding defined
414   in [RFC5987], allows the server to transmit characters outside the
415   ISO-8859-1 character set, and also to optionally specify the language
416   in use.
417
418   Future parameters might also require internationalization, in which
419   case the same encoding can be used.
420
4216.  Security Considerations
422
423   Using server-supplied information for constructing local filenames
424   introduces many risks.  These are summarized in Section 3.3.
425
426   Furthermore, implementers also ought to be aware of the Security
427   Considerations applying to HTTP (see Section 15 of [RFC2616]), and
428   also the parameter encoding defined in [RFC5987] (see Section 5).
429
4307.  IANA Considerations
431
4327.1.  Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter
433
434   This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration
435   procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in
436   Section 9 of [RFC2183].
437
4387.2.  Header Field Registration
439
440   This document updates the definition of the Content-Disposition HTTP
441   header field in the permanent HTTP header field registry (see
442   [RFC3864]).
443
444
445
446
447Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 8]
448
449Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
450
451
452   Header field name:  Content-Disposition
453
454   Applicable protocol:  http
455
456   Status:  standard
457
458   Author/Change controller:  IETF
459
460   Specification document:  this specification (Section 3)
461
4628.  Acknowledgements
463
464   Thanks to Adam Barth, Rolf Eike Beer, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Alfred
465   Hoenes, Roar Lauritzsen, Henrik Nordstrom, and Mark Nottingham for
466   their valuable feedback.
467
4689.  References
469
4709.1.  Normative References
471
472   [ISO-8859-1]  International Organization for Standardization,
473                 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
474                 graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No.
475                 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
476
477   [RFC2119]     Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
478                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
479
480   [RFC2616]     Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
481                 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
482                 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
483
484   [RFC5987]     Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
485                 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
486                 Parameters", RFC 5987, August 2010.
487
4889.2.  Informative References
489
490   [RFC2046]     Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
491                 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types",
492                 RFC 2046, November 1996.
493
494   [RFC2047]     Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
495                 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
496                 Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
497
498   [RFC2183]     Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
499                 Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
500
501
502
503Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                 [Page 9]
504
505Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
506
507
508                 Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183,
509                 August 1997.
510
511   [RFC2231]     Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
512                 Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
513                 Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
514
515   [RFC3629]     Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
516                 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
517
518   [RFC3864]     Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
519                 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90,
520                 RFC 3864, September 2004.
521
522   [RFC3986]     Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
523                 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
524                 STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
525
526Appendix A.  Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition
527
528   Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative
529   changes reflecting actual implementations have been made:
530
531   o  According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only
532      applies to content of type "application/octet-stream".  This
533      restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do
534      not check the content type, and it also discourages properly
535      declaring the media type.
536
537   o  RFC 2616 only allows "quoted-string" for the filename parameter.
538      This would be an exceptional parameter syntax, and also doesn't
539      reflect actual use.
540
541   o  The definition for the disposition type "inline" ([RFC2183],
542      Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its
543      processing.
544
545   o  This specification requires support for the extended parameter
546      encoding defined in [RFC5987].
547
548Appendix B.  Differences compared to RFC 2183
549
550   Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition
551   parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time",
552   and "size".  These do not appear to be implemented by any user agent,
553   thus have been omitted from this specification.
554
555
556
557
558
559Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 10]
560
561Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
562
563
564Appendix C.  Alternative Approaches to Internationalization
565
566   By default, HTTP header field parameters cannot carry characters
567   outside the ISO-8859-1 ([ISO-8859-1]) character encoding (see
568   [RFC2616], Section 2.2).  For the "filename" parameter, this of
569   course is an unacceptable restriction.
570
571   Unfortunately, user agent implementers have not managed to come up
572   with an interoperable approach, although the IETF Standards Track
573   specifies exactly one solution ([RFC2231], clarified and profiled for
574   HTTP in [RFC5987]).
575
576   For completeness, the sections below describe the various approaches
577   that have been tried, and explains how they are inferior to the RFC
578   5987 encoding used in this specification.
579
580C.1.  RFC 2047 Encoding
581
582   RFC 2047 defines an encoding mechanism for header fields, but this
583   encoding is not supposed to be used for header field parameters - see
584   Section 5 of [RFC2047]:
585
586      An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT appear within a 'quoted-string'.
587
588      ...
589
590      An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT be used in parameter of a MIME Content-
591      Type or Content-Disposition field, or in any structured field body
592      except within a 'comment' or 'phrase'.
593
594   In practice, some user agents implement the encoding, some do not
595   (exposing the encoded string to the user), and some get confused by
596   it.
597
598C.2.  Percent Encoding
599
600   Some user agents accept percent encoded ([RFC3986], Section 2.1)
601   sequences of characters encoded using the UTF-8 ([RFC3629]) character
602   encoding.
603
604   In practice, this is hard to use because those user agents that do
605   not support it will display the escaped character sequence to the
606   user.
607
608   Furthermore, the first user agent to implement this did choose the
609   encoding based on local settings; thus making it very hard to use in
610   multi-lingual environments.
611
612
613
614
615Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 11]
616
617Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
618
619
620C.3.  Encoding Sniffing
621
622   Some user agents inspect the value (which defaults to ISO-8859-1) and
623   switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more likely to be the correct
624   interpretation.
625
626   As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and
627   furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value.
628
629C.4.  Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
630
631   Unfortunately, as of October 2010, neither the encoding defined in
632   RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed
633   above was implemented interoperably.  Thus, this specification
634   recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least has the
635   advantage of actually being specified properly.
636
637   The table below shows the implementation support for the various
638   approaches:
639
640   +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
641   | User Agent    | RFC        | RFC    | Percent      | Encoding     |
642   |               | 2231/5987  | 2047   | Encoding     | Sniffing     |
643   +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
644   | Chrome        | no         | yes    | yes          | yes          |
645   | Firefox       | yes (*)    | yes    | no           | yes          |
646   | Internet      | no         | no     | yes          | no           |
647   | Explorer      |            |        |              |              |
648   | Konqueror     | yes        | no     | no           | no           |
649   | Opera         | yes        | no     | no           | no           |
650   | Safari        | no         | no     | no           | yes          |
651   +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
652
653   (*) Does not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described
654   in Section 3.3.
655
656Appendix D.  Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
657
658   Note: the issues names in the change log entries for
659   draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http refer to <http://greenbytes.de/tech/
660   webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-issues.html>.
661
662D.1.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00
663
664   Adjust terminology ("header" -> "header field").  Update rfc2231-in-
665   http reference.
666
667
668
669
670
671Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 12]
672
673Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
674
675
676D.2.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01
677
678   Update rfc2231-in-http reference.  Actually define the "filename"
679   parameter.  Add internationalization considerations.  Add examples
680   using the RFC 5987 encoding.  Add overview over other approaches,
681   plus a table reporting implementation status.  Add and resolve issue
682   "nodep2183".  Add issues "asciivsiso", "deplboth", "quoted", and
683   "registry".
684
685D.3.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02
686
687   Add and close issue "docfallback".  Close issues "asciivsiso",
688   "deplboth", "quoted", and "registry".
689
690D.4.  Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03
691
692   Updated to be a Working Draft of the IETF HTTPbis Working Group.
693
694D.5.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00
695
696   Closed issues:
697
698   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/242>: "handling of
699      unknown disposition types"
700
701   Slightly updated the notes about the proposed fallback behavior.
702
703D.6.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01
704
705   Various editorial improvements.
706
707D.7.  Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02
708
709   Closed issues:
710
711   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/244>: "state that
712      repeating parameters are invalid"
713
714   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/245>: "warn about
715      %xx in filenames being misinterpreted"
716
717   o  <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/246>: "mention
718      control chars when talking about postprecessing the filename
719      parameter"
720
721   Update Appendix C.4; Opera 10.63 RC implements the recommended
722   fallback behavior.
723
724
725
726
727Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 13]
728
729Internet-Draft         Content-Disposition in HTTP          October 2010
730
731
732Index
733
734   C
735      Content-Disposition header  4
736
737   H
738      Headers
739         Content-Disposition  4
740
741Author's Address
742
743   Julian F. Reschke
744   greenbytes GmbH
745   Hafenweg 16
746   Muenster, NW  48155
747   Germany
748
749   EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
750   URI:   http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783Reschke                  Expires April 28, 2011                [Page 14]
784
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.