Ignore:
Timestamp:
Sep 10, 2010, 8:56:19 AM (9 years ago)
Author:
julian.reschke@…
Message:

update implementation notes

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

    r995 r996  
    401401      <meta name="dct.creator" content="Reschke, J. F.">
    402402      <meta name="dct.identifier" content="urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-latest">
    403       <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-09-09">
     403      <meta name="dct.issued" scheme="ISO8601" content="2010-09-10">
    404404      <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.">
    405405      <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.">
     
    419419               <td class="left">Updates: <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616">2616</a> (if approved)
    420420               </td>
    421                <td class="right">September 9, 2010</td>
     421               <td class="right">September 10, 2010</td>
    422422            </tr>
    423423            <tr>
     
    426426            </tr>
    427427            <tr>
    428                <td class="left">Expires: March 13, 2011</td>
     428               <td class="left">Expires: March 14, 2011</td>
    429429               <td class="right"></td>
    430430            </tr>
     
    455455         in progress”.
    456456      </p>
    457       <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on March 13, 2011.</p>
     457      <p>This Internet-Draft will expire on March 14, 2011.</p>
    458458      <h1><a id="rfc.copyrightnotice" href="#rfc.copyrightnotice">Copyright Notice</a></h1>
    459459      <p>Copyright © 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.</p>
     
    624624      <p>Same as above, but adding the "filename" parameter for compatibility with user agents not implementing RFC 5987:</p>  <pre class="text">Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="EURO rates";
    625625                                 filename*=utf-8''<b>%e2%82%ac</b>%20rates
    626 </pre>  <p>Note: as of August 2010, many user agents unfortunately did not properly handle unexpected parameters, and some that implement
    627          RFC 5987 did not pick the extended parameter when both were present.
     626</pre>  <p>Note: as of September 2010, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs
     627         after "filename". Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the "filename" rather than the "filename*"
     628         parameter when it occurs first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon.
    628629      </p>
    629630      <h1 id="rfc.section.5"><a href="#rfc.section.5">5.</a>&nbsp;<a id="i18n" href="#i18n">Internationalization Considerations</a></h1>
     
    789790      <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>
    790791      <h2 id="rfc.section.C.4"><a href="#rfc.section.C.4">C.4</a>&nbsp;<a id="alternatives.implementations" href="#alternatives.implementations">Implementations</a></h2>
    791       <p id="rfc.section.C.4.p.1">Unfortunately, as of August 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231 and 5789, nor any of the alternate approaches
     792      <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
    792793         discussed above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which
    793794         at least has the advantage of actually being specified properly.
     
    876877         </li>
    877878      </ul>
     879      <p id="rfc.section.D.5.p.2">Slightly updated the notes about the proposed fallback behavior.</p>
    878880      <h1 id="rfc.index"><a href="#rfc.index">Index</a></h1>
    879881      <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

    r995 r996  
    275275</postamble>
    276276</figure>
    277 
    278 
    279277<figure>
    280278<preamble>
     
    287285</artwork>
    288286<postamble>
    289   Note: as of August 2010, many user agents unfortunately did not properly handle
    290   unexpected parameters, and some that implement RFC 5987 did not pick
    291   the extended parameter when both were present.
     287  Note: as of September 2010, those user agents that do not support the RFC 5987
     288  encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename". Unfortunately,
     289  some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the "filename" rather
     290  than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs first; it is expected that
     291  this situation is going to improve soon.
    292292</postamble>
    293293</figure>
     
    689689
    690690<section title="Implementations" anchor="alternatives.implementations">
    691 
    692 <t>
    693   Unfortunately, as of August 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
     691<t>
     692  Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in RFCs 2231
    694693  and 5789, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed above was
    695694  implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification recommends the approach
     
    702701  of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...</cref> 
    703702</t>
    704 
    705 
    706703<texttable align="left">
    707704  <ttcol>User Agent</ttcol>
     
    748745 
    749746  <postamble>
    750   (*) Does
    751   not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described in
     747  (*) Does not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described in
    752748  <xref target="disposition.parameter.filename"/>.
    753  
    754749  </postamble>
    755750
     
    807802  </list>
    808803</t>
     804<t>
     805  Slightly updated the notes about the proposed fallback behavior.
     806</t>
    809807</section>
    810808</section>
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.