draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01.txt 
HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Updates: 2616 (if approved) September 3, 2010 Updates: 2616 (if approved) September 16, 2010
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 7, 2011 Expires: March 20, 2011
Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01
Abstract Abstract
HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but 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 points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This
specification takes over the definition and registration of Content- specification takes over the definition and registration of Content-
Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization
aspects. aspects.
Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content- This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content-
Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by
the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>. <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/123>.
Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working
group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is
at <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ at <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/
query?component=content-disp> and related documents (including fancy query?component=content-disp> and related documents (including fancy
diffs) can be found at <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>. diffs) can be found at <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/>.
The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.5.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2011.
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Header Field Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Header Field Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . 8 7.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . 8
7.2. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.2. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization . . . 10 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization . . . 10
C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.2. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C.2. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.3. Encoding Sniffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C.3. Encoding Sniffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.4. Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 12 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 12 D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 12 D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 12 D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 12
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 . . . . . . . . . 12
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in
Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of
the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5): the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5):
Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it
is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for
implementers. implementers.
skipping to change at page 5, line 41 skipping to change at page 5, line 41
3.2. Disposition Type 3.2. Disposition Type
If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively), If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively),
this indicates that the user agent should not display the response, this indicates that the user agent should not display the response,
but directly enter a "save as..." dialog. but directly enter a "save as..." dialog.
On the other hand, if it matches "inline" (case-insensitively), this On the other hand, if it matches "inline" (case-insensitively), this
implies default processing. implies default processing.
Other disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way as Unknown or unhandled disposition types SHOULD be handled the same way
"attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8). as "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' 3.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename'
The parameters "filename" and "filename*", to be matched case- The parameters "filename" and "filename*", to be matched case-
insensitively, provide information on how to construct a filename for insensitively, provide information on how to construct a filename for
storing the message payload. storing the message payload.
Depending on the disposition type, this information might be used Depending on the disposition type, this information might be used
right away (in the "save as..." interaction caused for the right away (in the "save as..." interaction caused for the
"attachment" disposition type), or later on (for instance, when the "attachment" disposition type), or later on (for instance, when the
user decides to save the contents of the current page being user decides to save the contents of the current page being
displayed). displayed).
"filename" and "filename*" behave the same, except that "filename*" The parameters "filename" and "filename*" differ only in that
uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use of "filename*" uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use
characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set of characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set
([ISO-8859-1]). When both "filename" and "filename*" are present, a ([ISO-8859-1]).
recipient SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename" - this will
make it possible to send the same header value to clients that do not Many user agent implementations predating this specification do not
support "filename*". understand the "filename*" parameter. Therefore, when both
"filename" and "filename*" are present in a single header field
value, recipients SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename".
This way, senders can avoid special-casing specific user agents by
sending both the more expressive "filename*" parameter, and the
"filename" parameter as fallback for legacy recipients (see Section 4
for an example).
It is essential that user agents treat the specified filename as It is essential that user agents treat the specified filename as
advisory only, thus be very careful in extracting the desired advisory only, thus be very careful in extracting the desired
information. In particular: information. In particular:
o When the value contains path separator characters, all but the o When the value contains path separator characters, all but the
last segment SHOULD be ignored. This prevents unintentional last segment SHOULD be ignored. This prevents unintentional
overwriting of well-known file system location (such as "/etc/ overwriting of well-known file system location (such as "/etc/
passwd"). passwd").
o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold
type information in the file system, but rely on filename type information in the file system, but rely on filename
extensions instead. Trusting the server-provided file extension extensions instead. Trusting the server-provided file extension
could introduce a privilege escalation when later on the file is could introduce a privilege escalation when later on the file is
opened locally (consider ".exe"). Thus, recipients need to ensure opened locally (consider ".exe"). Thus, recipients need to ensure
that a file extension is used that is safe, optimally matching the that a file extension is used that is safe, optimally matching the
media type of the received payload. media type of the received payload.
o Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a o Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a
special meaning in the filesystem or in shell commands, such as special meaning in the file system or in shell commands, such as
"." and "..", "~", "|", and also device names. "." and "..", "~", "|", and also device names.
3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions
To enable future extensions, unknown parameters SHOULD be ignored To enable future extensions, unknown parameters SHOULD be ignored
(see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8). (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8).
3.5. Extensibility 3.5. Extensibility
Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for
disposition types and disposition parameters. This registry is disposition types and disposition parameters. This registry is
shared by different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME shared by different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME
and HTTP. Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the and HTTP. Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the
context of HTTP. context of HTTP.
4. Examples 4. Examples
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "foo.html": Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of
"example.html":
Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=foo.html Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=example.html
Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't
present, but to remember the filename "foo.html" for a subsequent present, but to remember the filename "example.html" for a subsequent
save operation: save operation:
Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "foo.html" Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "example.html"
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "an example": Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "an example":
Content-Disposition: Attachment; Filename*=UTF-8'en'an%20example Content-Disposition: Attachment; Filename*=UTF-8'en'an%20example
Note that this example uses the extended encoding defined in Note that this example uses the extended encoding defined in
[RFC5987] to specify that the natural language of the filename is [RFC5987] to specify that the natural language of the filename is
English, and also to encode the space character which is not allowed English, and also to encode the space character which is not allowed
in the token production. in the token production.
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename containing the Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename containing the
Unicode character U+20AC (EURO SIGN): Unicode character U+20AC (EURO SIGN):
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*= UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename*= UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates
Here, the encoding defined in [RFC5987] is also used to encode the Here, the encoding defined in [RFC5987] is also used to encode the
non-ISO-8859-1 character. non-ISO-8859-1 character.
Same as above, but adding the "filename" parameter for compatibility Same as above, but adding the "filename" parameter for compatibility
with user agents not implementing RFC 5987: with user agents not implementing RFC 5987:
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="EURO rates"; Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates filename="EURO rates";
filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates
Note: as of August 2010, many user agents unfortunately did not Note: as of September 2010, those user agents that do not support the
properly handle unexpected parameters, and some that implement RFC RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename".
5987 did not pick the extended parameter when both were present. Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the
"filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs
first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon.
5. Internationalization Considerations 5. Internationalization Considerations
The "filename*" parameter (Section 3.3), using the encoding defined The "filename*" parameter (Section 3.3), using the encoding defined
in [RFC5987], allows the server to transmit characters outside the in [RFC5987], allows the server to transmit characters outside the
ISO-8859-1 character set, and also to optionally specify the language ISO-8859-1 character set, and also to optionally specify the language
in use. in use.
Future parameters might also require internationalization, in which Future parameters might also require internationalization, in which
case the same encoding can be used. case the same encoding can be used.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Using server-supplied information for constructing local filenames Using server-supplied information for constructing local filenames
introduces many risks. These are summarized in Section 3.3. introduces many risks. These are summarized in Section 3.3.
Furthermore, implementers also ought to be aware of the Security Furthermore, implementers also ought to be aware of the Security
Considerations applying to HTTP (see Section 15 of [RFC2616]), and Considerations applying to HTTP (see Section 15 of [RFC2616]), and
also the parameter encoding defined in [RFC5987] (see Appendix ). also the parameter encoding defined in [RFC5987] (see Section 5).
7. IANA Considerations 7. IANA Considerations
7.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter 7.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter
This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration
procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in
Section 9 of [RFC2183]. Section 9 of [RFC2183].
7.2. Header Field Registration 7.2. Header Field Registration
skipping to change at page 8, line 40 skipping to change at page 8, line 50
Applicable protocol: http Applicable protocol: http
Status: standard Status: standard
Author/Change controller: IETF Author/Change controller: IETF
Specification document: this specification (Section 3) Specification document: this specification (Section 3)
8. Acknowledgements 8. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Rolf Eike Beer, Alfred Hoenes, and Roar Lauritzsen for Thanks to Rolf Eike Beer, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Alfred Hoenes, Roar
their valuable feedback. Lauritzsen, and Henrik Nordstrom for their valuable feedback.
9. References 9. References
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization, [ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization,
"Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded
graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No.
1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998. 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.
[RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Applicability of RFC 2231 Encoding to [RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Headers", RFC 5987, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field
August 2010. Parameters", RFC 5987, August 2010.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types",
RFC 2046, November 1996. RFC 2046, November 1996.
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for
Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996. Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996.
skipping to change at page 9, line 34 skipping to change at page 9, line 45
[RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating [RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating
Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The
Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183,
August 1997. August 1997.
[RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and [RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and
Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997. Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", RFC 3629, STD 63, November 2003. 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
[RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration
Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90,
RFC 3864, September 2004. RFC 3864, September 2004.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
"Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
RFC 3986, STD 66, January 2005. STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition
Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative
changes reflecting actual implementations have been made: changes reflecting actual implementations have been made:
o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only
applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This
restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do
not check the content type, and it also discourages properly not check the content type, and it also discourages properly
skipping to change at page 11, line 36 skipping to change at page 11, line 46
C.3. Encoding Sniffing C.3. Encoding Sniffing
Some user agents inspect the value (which defaults to ISO-8859-1) and Some user agents inspect the value (which defaults to ISO-8859-1) and
switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more likely to be the correct switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more likely to be the correct
interpretation. interpretation.
As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and
furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value. furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value.
C.4. Implementations C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Unfortunately, as of August 2010, neither the encoding defined in Unfortunately, as of September 2010, neither the encoding defined in
RFCs 2231 and 5789, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed
above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification
recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least has the recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least has the
advantage of actually being specified properly. advantage of actually being specified properly.
The table below shows the implementation support for the various The table below shows the implementation support for the various
approaches: [[impls: Discuss: should we mention the implementation approaches:
status of actual UAs in a RFC? Up to the IESG to decide...]]
+---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
| User Agent | RFC | RFC | Percent | Encoding | | User Agent | RFC | RFC | Percent | Encoding |
| | 2231/5987 | 2047 | Encoding | Sniffing | | | 2231/5987 | 2047 | Encoding | Sniffing |
+---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
| Chrome | no | yes | yes | yes | | Chrome | no | yes | yes | yes |
| Firefox | yes (*) | yes | no | yes | | Firefox | yes (*) | yes | no | yes |
| Internet | no | no | yes | no | | Internet | no | no | yes | no |
| Explorer | | | | | | Explorer | | | | |
| Konqueror | yes | no | no | no | | Konqueror | yes | no | no | no |
| Opera | yes (*) | no | no | no | | Opera | yes (*) | no | no | no |
skipping to change at page 12, line 45 skipping to change at page 12, line 49
D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02
Add and close issue "docfallback". Close issues "asciivsiso", Add and close issue "docfallback". Close issues "asciivsiso",
"deplboth", "quoted", and "registry". "deplboth", "quoted", and "registry".
D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03
Updated to be a Working Draft of the IETF HTTPbis Working Group. Updated to be a Working Draft of the IETF HTTPbis Working Group.
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00
Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/242>: "handling of
unknown disposition types"
Slightly updated the notes about the proposed fallback behavior.
Index Index
C C
Content-Disposition header 4 Content-Disposition header 4
H H
Headers Headers
Content-Disposition 4 Content-Disposition 4
Author's Address Author's Address
 End of changes. 31 change blocks. 
47 lines changed or deleted 69 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.39. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/