Changeset 1005
- Timestamp:
- 14/09/10 13:25:45 (12 years ago)
- Location:
- draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest
- Files:
-
- 2 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html
r1004 r1005 497 497 <li class="tocline1">C.2 <a href="#alternatives.percent">Percent Encoding</a></li> 498 498 <li class="tocline1">C.3 <a href="#alternatives.sniff">Encoding Sniffing</a></li> 499 <li class="tocline1">C.4 <a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations </a></li>499 <li class="tocline1">C.4 <a href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></li> 500 500 </ul> 501 501 </li> … … 791 791 </p> 792 792 <p id="rfc.section.C.3.p.2">As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value.</p> 793 <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a> <a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations </a></h2>793 <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a> <a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)</a></h2> 794 794 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5789, nor any of the alternate approaches 795 795 discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which 796 796 at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly. 797 797 </p> 798 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches: <span class="comment" id="impls">[<a href="#impls" class="smpl">impls</a>: Discuss: should we mention the implementation status of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...]</span> 799 </p> 798 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:</p> 800 799 <div id="rfc.table.u.1"> 801 800 <table class="tt full left" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"> -
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml
r1004 r1005 688 688 </section> 689 689 690 <section title="Implementations " anchor="alternatives.implementations">690 <section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations"> 691 691 <t> 692 692 Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 … … 698 698 <t> 699 699 The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches: 700 <cref anchor="impls">Discuss: should we mention the implementation status701 of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...</cref>702 700 </t> 703 701 <texttable align="left">
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.