- Timestamp:
- 12/11/10 12:54:50 (10 years ago)
- File:
-
- 1 edited
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
-
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.html
r1080 r1084 404 404 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 405 405 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest"> 406 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-11- 07">406 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-11-12"> 407 407 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization aspects."> 408 408 <meta name="description" content="HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization aspects."> … … 422 422 <td class="left">Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved) 423 423 </td> 424 <td class="right">November 7, 2010</td>424 <td class="right">November 12, 2010</td> 425 425 </tr> 426 426 <tr> … … 429 429 </tr> 430 430 <tr> 431 <td class="left">Expires: May 1 1, 2011</td>431 <td class="left">Expires: May 16, 2011</td> 432 432 <td class="right"></td> 433 433 </tr> … … 458 458 in progress”. 459 459 </p> 460 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on May 1 1, 2011.</p>460 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 2011.</p> 461 461 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 462 462 <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> … … 822 822 <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> 823 823 <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> 824 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of October 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches824 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of November 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches 825 825 discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which 826 826 at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.