Changeset 1145 for draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp
- Timestamp:
- 01/03/11 09:24:49 (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
r1143 r1145 94 94 margin-left: 2em; 95 95 margin-right: 2em; 96 } 97 ol.la { 98 list-style-type: lower-alpha; 99 } 100 ol.ua { 101 list-style-type: upper-alpha; 96 102 } 97 103 ol p { … … 356 362 } 357 363 @top-right { 358 content: " February2011";364 content: "March 2011"; 359 365 } 360 366 @top-center { … … 365 371 } 366 372 @bottom-center { 367 content: "Expires August 30, 2011";373 content: "Expires September 2, 2011"; 368 374 } 369 375 @bottom-right { … … 402 408 <link rel="Appendix" title="D Advice on Generating Content-Disposition Header Fields" href="#rfc.section.D"> 403 409 <link rel="Appendix" title="E Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" href="#rfc.section.E"> 404 <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.54 0, 2011-01-10 09:27:20, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/">410 <meta name="generator" content="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629.xslt, Revision 1.543, 2011-02-18 21:03:40, XSLT vendor: SAXON 8.9 from Saxonica http://www.saxonica.com/"> 405 411 <link rel="schema.dct" href="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"> 406 412 <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F."> 407 413 <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest"> 408 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-0 2-26">414 <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2011-03-01"> 409 415 <meta name="dct.abstract" content="RFC 2616 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."> 410 416 <meta name="description" content="RFC 2616 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."> … … 424 430 <td class="left">Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved) 425 431 </td> 426 <td class="right"> February 26, 2011</td>432 <td class="right">March 1, 2011</td> 427 433 </tr> 428 434 <tr> … … 431 437 </tr> 432 438 <tr> 433 <td class="left">Expires: August 30, 2011</td>439 <td class="left">Expires: September 2, 2011</td> 434 440 <td class="right"></td> 435 441 </tr> … … 449 455 list is at <<a href="http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?component=content-disp">http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/query?component=content-disp</a>> and related documents (including fancy diffs) can be found at <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/">http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/</a>>. 450 456 </p> 451 <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.0 5" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05">Appendix E.10</a>.457 <p>The changes in this draft are summarized in <a href="#changes.since.06" title="Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06">Appendix E.11</a>. 452 458 </p> 453 459 <h1><a id="rfc.status" href="#rfc.status">Status of This Memo</a></h1> … … 460 466 in progress”. 461 467 </p> 462 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2011.</p>468 <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2, 2011.</p> 463 469 <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1> 464 470 <p>Copyright © 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p> … … 518 524 <li>E.9 <a href="#changes.since.04">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04</a></li> 519 525 <li>E.10 <a href="#changes.since.05">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05</a></li> 526 <li>E.11 <a href="#changes.since.06">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06</a></li> 520 527 </ul> 521 528 </li> … … 839 846 <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> 840 847 <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> 841 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of February 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches842 discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which843 at leasthas the advantage of actually being specified properly.848 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of March 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed 849 above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least 850 has the advantage of actually being specified properly. 844 851 </p> 845 852 <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.2">The table below shows the implementation support for the various approaches:</p> … … 1011 1018 </p> 1012 1019 <p id="rfc.section.E.10.p.2">Added appendix "Advice on Generating Content-Disposition Header Fields".</p> 1020 <h2 id="rfc.section.E.11"><a href="#rfc.section.E.11">E.11</a> <a id="changes.since.06" href="#changes.since.06">Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06</a></h2> 1021 <p id="rfc.section.E.11.p.1">None yet.</p> 1013 1022 <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1> 1014 1023 <p class="noprint"><a href="#rfc.index.C">C</a> <a href="#rfc.index.H">H</a> <a href="#rfc.index.I">I</a> <a href="#rfc.index.R">R</a> -
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp/latest/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp.xml
r1144 r1145 42 42 </author> 43 43 44 <date month=" February" year="2011"/>44 <date month="March" year="2011"/> 45 45 <workgroup>HTTPbis Working Group</workgroup> 46 46 … … 764 764 <section title="Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)" anchor="alternatives.implementations"> 765 765 <t> 766 Unfortunately, as of February2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231766 Unfortunately, as of March 2011, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 767 767 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed above was 768 768 implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach
Note: See TracChangeset
for help on using the changeset viewer.