Re: content-disposition header

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Foteos Macrides: "Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)"
• Previous message: Foteos Macrides: "Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "content-disposition header"
• Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: content-disposition header"

> Should content-disposition from RFC 1806 be considered for HTTP?

Im alredy using it in some HTTP bulk transfer applications, and it
certainly seems to work. the inline/attachment distinction is a bit
meaningless, but it's a nice standard way to send filename and other
info.

Im not on http-wg, so please CC me if there's any new params proposed
or the like that would make it HTTP-friendly.

Ive been hideously delinquent in cutting the next version of the RFC;
Ill get off my posterior now.


-Rens

• Next message: Foteos Macrides: "Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)"
• Previous message: Foteos Macrides: "Re: REPOST (was: HTTP working group status & issues)"
• In reply to: Larry Masinter: "content-disposition header"
• Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: content-disposition header"