draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03.txt   draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04.txt 
HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke
Internet-Draft greenbytes Internet-Draft greenbytes
Updates: 2616 (if approved) October 25, 2010 Updates: 2616 (if approved) November 12, 2010
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 28, 2011 Expires: May 16, 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-03 draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04
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)
skipping to change at page 1, line 34 skipping to change at page 1, line 34
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://trac.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.7. The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.8.
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 April 28, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 16, 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 3, line 12 skipping to change at page 3, line 12
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
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' . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . 10
Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . 10 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization . . . 11 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization . . . 11
C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.2. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 C.2. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C.3. Encoding Sniffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 C.3. Encoding Sniffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before
publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
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 . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 13 D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13 D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13 D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13
D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 . . . . . . . . . 13 D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 . . . . . . . . . 13
D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01 . . . . . . . . . 13 D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01 . . . . . . . . . 13
D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 . . . . . . . . . 13 D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 . . . . . . . . . 13
D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03 . . . . . . . . . 14
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
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.
This specification takes over the definition and registration of This specification takes over the definition and registration of
Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability
testing with existing User Agents, it fully defines a profile of the testing with existing User Agents, it fully defines a profile of the
features defined in the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) features defined in the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME)
variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, and also clarifies variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, and also clarifies
internationalization aspects. internationalization aspects.
Note: this document does not apply to Content-Disposition header
fields appearing in message payloads transmitted over HTTP, such
as when using the media type "multipart/form-data" ([RFC2388]).
2. Notational Conventions 2. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section
2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for linear whitespace (LWS). 2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for implied linear whitespace
(LWS).
3. Header Field Definition 3. Header Field Definition
The Content-Disposition response header field is used to convey The Content-Disposition response header field is used to convey
additional information about how to process the response payload, and additional information about how to process the response payload, and
also can be used to attach additional metadata, such as the filename also can be used to attach additional metadata, such as the filename
to use when saving the response payload locally. to use when saving the response payload locally.
3.1. Grammar 3.1. Grammar
skipping to change at page 5, line 25 skipping to change at page 5, line 25
filename-parm = "filename" "=" value filename-parm = "filename" "=" value
| "filename*" "=" ext-value | "filename*" "=" ext-value
disp-ext-parm = token "=" value disp-ext-parm = token "=" value
| ext-token "=" ext-value | ext-token "=" ext-value
ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*"> ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*">
Defined in [RFC2616]: Defined in [RFC2616]:
token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6>
; token | quoted-string
Defined in [RFC5987]: Defined in [RFC5987]:
ext-value = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2> ext-value = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>
Parameter names MUST NOT be repeated; a header field value with Senders MUST NOT generate header field values with multiple instances
multiple instances of the same parameter SHOULD be treated as of the same parameter name. Recipients SHOULD treat these values as
invalid. invalid.
Note that due to the rules for implied linear whitespace (Section 2.1
of [RFC2616]), OPTIONAL whitespace can appear between words (token or
quoted-string) and separator characters.
Furthermore note that the format used for ext-value allows specifying
a natural language; this is of limited use for filenames and is
likely to be ignored by recipients.
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 prompt the user to save the this indicates that the user agent should prompt the user to save the
response locally, rather than process it normally (as per its media response locally, rather than process it normally (as per its media
type). type).
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.
skipping to change at page 7, line 32 skipping to change at page 7, line 41
context of HTTP. context of HTTP.
4. Examples 4. Examples
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of
"example.html": "example.html":
Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=example.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 "example.html" for a subsequent present, but to remember the filename "an example.html" for a
save operation: subsequent save operation:
Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "example.html"
Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of "an example":
Content-Disposition: Attachment; Filename*=UTF-8'en'an%20example Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "an example.html"
Note that this example uses the extended encoding defined in Note: this uses the quoted-string form so that the space character
[RFC5987] to specify that the natural language of the filename is can be included.
English, and also to encode the space character which is not allowed
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; Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename*= UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates 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; Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="EURO rates"; filename="EURO rates";
filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates
Note: as of October 2010, those user agents that do not support the Note: as of November 2010, those user agents that do not support the
RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename". RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename".
Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the
"filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs "filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs
first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon. 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
skipping to change at page 10, line 11 skipping to change at page 10, line 18
[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 [RFC2388] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003. form-data", RFC 2388, August 1998.
[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",
STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.
Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition
skipping to change at page 10, line 48 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its
processing. processing.
o This specification requires support for the extended parameter o This specification requires support for the extended parameter
encoding defined in [RFC5987]. encoding defined in [RFC5987].
Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183
Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition
parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time", parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time",
and "size". These do not appear to be implemented by any user agent, and "size". The majority of user agents does not implement these,
thus have been omitted from this specification. thus they have been omitted from this specification.
Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization
By default, HTTP header field parameters cannot carry characters By default, HTTP header field parameters cannot carry characters
outside the ISO-8859-1 ([ISO-8859-1]) character encoding (see outside the ISO-8859-1 ([ISO-8859-1]) character encoding (see
[RFC2616], Section 2.2). For the "filename" parameter, this of [RFC2616], Section 2.2). For the "filename" parameter, this of
course is an unacceptable restriction. course is an unacceptable restriction.
Unfortunately, user agent implementers have not managed to come up Unfortunately, user agent implementers have not managed to come up
with an interoperable approach, although the IETF Standards Track with an interoperable approach, although the IETF Standards Track
skipping to change at page 11, line 42 skipping to change at page 11, line 49
Type or Content-Disposition field, or in any structured field body Type or Content-Disposition field, or in any structured field body
except within a 'comment' or 'phrase'. except within a 'comment' or 'phrase'.
In practice, some user agents implement the encoding, some do not In practice, some user agents implement the encoding, some do not
(exposing the encoded string to the user), and some get confused by (exposing the encoded string to the user), and some get confused by
it. it.
C.2. Percent Encoding C.2. Percent Encoding
Some user agents accept percent encoded ([RFC3986], Section 2.1) Some user agents accept percent encoded ([RFC3986], Section 2.1)
sequences of characters encoded using the UTF-8 ([RFC3629]) character sequences of characters. The character encoding being used for
encoding. decoding depends on various factors, including the encoding of the
referring page, the user agent's locale, its configuration, and also
the actual value of the parameter.
In practice, this is hard to use because those user agents that do In practice, this is hard to use because those user agents that do
not support it will display the escaped character sequence to the not support it will display the escaped character sequence to the
user. user. For those user agents that do implement this it is difficult
to predict what character encoding they actually expect.
Furthermore, the first user agent to implement this did choose the
encoding based on local settings; thus making it very hard to use in
multi-lingual environments.
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 for
switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more likely to be the correct the quoted-string form) and switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more
interpretation. likely to be the correct 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 (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Unfortunately, as of October 2010, neither the encoding defined in Unfortunately, as of November 2010, neither the encoding defined in
RFCs 2231 and 5987, 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: approaches:
+---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
| 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 |
| Safari | no | no | no | yes | | Safari | no | no | no | yes |
+---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+
(*) Does not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described (*) But currently being implemented.
(**) Does not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described
in Section 3.3. in Section 3.3.
Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication)
Note: the issues names in the change log entries for Note: the issues names in the change log entries for
draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http refer to <http://greenbytes.de/tech/ draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http refer to <http://greenbytes.de/tech/
webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-issues.html>. webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-issues.html>.
D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00
skipping to change at page 14, line 5 skipping to change at page 14, line 9
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/245>: "warn about o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/245>: "warn about
%xx in filenames being misinterpreted" %xx in filenames being misinterpreted"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/246>: "mention o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/246>: "mention
control chars when talking about postprecessing the filename control chars when talking about postprecessing the filename
parameter" parameter"
Update Appendix C.4; Opera 10.63 RC implements the recommended Update Appendix C.4; Opera 10.63 RC implements the recommended
fallback behavior. fallback behavior.
D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03
Closed issues:
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/252>:
"'modification-date' *is* implemented in Konq 4.5"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/253>: "clarify what
LWS means for the Content-Disp grammar"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/258>: "Avoid passive
voice in message requirements"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/263>: "text about
historical percent-decoding unclear"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/264>: "add
explanation of language tagging"
o <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/265>: "Clarify that
C-D spec does not apply to multipart upload"
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. 28 change blocks. 
44 lines changed or deleted 77 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/