idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC2616, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2616, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-10-16) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 17, 2011) is 4789 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ISO-8859-1' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2616 (Obsoleted by RFC 7230, RFC 7231, RFC 7232, RFC 7233, RFC 7234, RFC 7235) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5987 (Obsoleted by RFC 8187) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2388 (Obsoleted by RFC 7578) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HTTPbis Working Group J. Reschke 3 Internet-Draft greenbytes 4 Updates: 2616 (if approved) February 17, 2011 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: August 21, 2011 8 Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the 9 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 10 draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-05 12 Abstract 14 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field, but 15 points out that it is not part of the HTTP/1.1 Standard. This 16 specification takes over the definition and registration of Content- 17 Disposition, as used in HTTP, and clarifies internationalization 18 aspects. 20 Editorial Note (To be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 22 This specification is expected to replace the definition of Content- 23 Disposition in the HTTP/1.1 specification, as currently revised by 24 the IETF HTTPbis working group. See also 25 . 27 Discussion of this draft should take place on the HTTPBIS working 28 group mailing list (ietf-http-wg@w3.org). The current issues list is 29 at and related documents (including fancy 31 diffs) can be found at . 33 The changes in this draft are summarized in Appendix D.9. 35 Status of This Memo 37 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 38 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 40 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 41 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 42 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 43 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 45 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 46 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 47 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 48 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 49 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 21, 2011. 51 Copyright Notice 53 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 54 document authors. All rights reserved. 56 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 57 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 58 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 59 publication of this document. Please review these documents 60 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 61 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 62 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 63 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 64 described in the Simplified BSD License. 66 Table of Contents 68 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3. Conformance and Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 71 4. Header Field Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 4.1. Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 4.2. Disposition Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 4.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 4.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 76 4.5. Extensibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 5. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 78 6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 80 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 81 8.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter . . . . . . 9 82 8.2. Header Field Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 83 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 84 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 85 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 86 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 87 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition . . . . . . . . 10 88 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 . . . . . . . . . . 11 89 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization . . . 11 90 C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 91 C.2. Percent Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 92 C.3. Encoding Sniffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 93 C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before 94 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 95 Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before 96 publication) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 97 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 . . . . . . . . . . 13 98 D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 . . . . . . . . . . 13 99 D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 . . . . . . . . . . 13 100 D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 . . . . . . . . . . 13 101 D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 . . . . . . . . . 13 102 D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01 . . . . . . . . . 13 103 D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 . . . . . . . . . 13 104 D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03 . . . . . . . . . 14 105 D.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04 . . . . . . . . . 14 106 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 108 1. Introduction 110 HTTP/1.1 defines the Content-Disposition response header field in 111 Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], but points out that it is not part of 112 the HTTP/1.1 Standard (Section 15.5): 114 Content-Disposition is not part of the HTTP standard, but since it 115 is widely implemented, we are documenting its use and risks for 116 implementers. 118 This specification takes over the definition and registration of 119 Content-Disposition, as used in HTTP. Based on interoperability 120 testing with existing User Agents, it fully defines a profile of the 121 features defined in the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) 122 variant ([RFC2183]) of the header field, and also clarifies 123 internationalization aspects. 125 Note: this document does not apply to Content-Disposition header 126 fields appearing in message payloads transmitted over HTTP, such 127 as when using the media type "multipart/form-data" ([RFC2388]). 129 2. Notational Conventions 131 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 132 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 133 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 135 This specification uses the augmented BNF notation defined in Section 136 2.1 of [RFC2616], including its rules for implied linear whitespace 137 (LWS). 139 3. Conformance and Error Handling 141 This specification defines conformance criteria for both senders 142 (usually, HTTP origin servers) and recipients (usually, HTTP user 143 agents) of the Content-Location header field. An implementation is 144 considered conformant if it complies with all of the requirements 145 associated with its role. 147 This specification also defines certain forms of the header field- 148 value to be invalid, using both ABNF and prose requirements, but it 149 does not define special handling of these invalid field-values. 151 Sending implementations MUST NOT generate Content-Location header 152 fields that are invalid. 154 Consuming implementations MAY take steps to recover a usable field- 155 value from an invalid header field, but SHOULD NOT reject the message 156 outright, unless this is explicitly desirable behaviour (e.g., the 157 implementation is a validator). As such, the default handling of 158 invalid fields is to ignore them. 160 4. Header Field Definition 162 The Content-Disposition response header field is used to convey 163 additional information about how to process the response payload, and 164 also can be used to attach additional metadata, such as the filename 165 to use when saving the response payload locally. 167 4.1. Grammar 169 content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" 170 disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) 172 disposition-type = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type 173 ; case-insensitive 174 disp-ext-type = token 176 disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm 178 filename-parm = "filename" "=" value 179 | "filename*" "=" ext-value 181 disp-ext-parm = token "=" value 182 | ext-token "=" ext-value 183 ext-token = 185 Defined in [RFC2616]: 187 token = 188 quoted-string = 189 value = 190 ; token | quoted-string 192 Defined in [RFC5987]: 194 ext-value = 196 Header field values with multiple instances of the same parameter 197 name are invalid. 199 Note that due to the rules for implied linear whitespace (Section 2.1 200 of [RFC2616]), OPTIONAL whitespace can appear between words (token or 201 quoted-string) and separator characters. 203 Furthermore note that the format used for ext-value allows specifying 204 a natural language; this is of limited use for filenames and is 205 likely to be ignored by recipients. 207 4.2. Disposition Type 209 If the disposition type matches "attachment" (case-insensitively), 210 this indicates that the user agent should prompt the user to save the 211 response locally, rather than process it normally (as per its media 212 type). 214 On the other hand, if it matches "inline" (case-insensitively), this 215 implies default processing. 217 Unknown or unhandled disposition types SHOULD be handled by 218 recipients the same way as "attachment" (see also [RFC2183], Section 219 2.8). 221 4.3. Disposition Parameter: 'Filename' 223 The parameters "filename" and "filename*", to be matched case- 224 insensitively, provide information on how to construct a filename for 225 storing the message payload. 227 Depending on the disposition type, this information might be used 228 right away (in the "save as..." interaction caused for the 229 "attachment" disposition type), or later on (for instance, when the 230 user decides to save the contents of the current page being 231 displayed). 233 The parameters "filename" and "filename*" differ only in that 234 "filename*" uses the encoding defined in [RFC5987], allowing the use 235 of characters not present in the ISO-8859-1 character set 236 ([ISO-8859-1]). 238 Many user agent implementations predating this specification do not 239 understand the "filename*" parameter. Therefore, when both 240 "filename" and "filename*" are present in a single header field 241 value, recipients SHOULD pick "filename*" and ignore "filename". 242 This way, senders can avoid special-casing specific user agents by 243 sending both the more expressive "filename*" parameter, and the 244 "filename" parameter as fallback for legacy recipients (see Section 5 245 for an example). 247 It is essential that user agents treat the specified filename as 248 advisory only, thus be very careful in extracting the desired 249 information. In particular: 251 o When the value contains path separator characters ("\" or "/"), 252 recipients SHOULD ignore all but the last path segment. This 253 prevents unintentional overwriting of well-known file system 254 locations (such as "/etc/passwd"). 256 o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold 257 type information in the file system, but rely on filename 258 extensions instead. Trusting the server-provided file extension 259 could introduce a privilege escalation when the saved file is 260 later opened (consider ".exe"). Thus, recipients need to ensure 261 that a file extension is used that is safe, optimally matching the 262 media type of the received payload. 264 o Recipients are advised to strip or replace character sequences 265 that are known to cause confusion both in user interfaces and in 266 filenames, such as control characters and leading and trailing 267 whitespace. 269 o Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a 270 special meaning in the file system or in shell commands, such as 271 "." and "..", "~", "|", and also device names. 273 Note: Many user agents do not properly handle escape characters 274 when using the quoted-string form. Furthermore, some user agents 275 erroneously try to perform unescaping of "percent" escapes (see 276 Appendix C.2), and thus might misinterpret filenames containing 277 the percent character followed by two hex digits. 279 4.4. Disposition Parameter: Extensions 281 To enable future extensions, recipients SHOULD ignore unrecognized 282 parameters (see also [RFC2183], Section 2.8). 284 4.5. Extensibility 286 Note that Section 9 of [RFC2183] defines IANA registries both for 287 disposition types and disposition parameters. This registry is 288 shared by different protocols using Content-Disposition, such as MIME 289 and HTTP. Therefore, not all registered values may make sense in the 290 context of HTTP. 292 5. Examples 294 Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename of 295 "example.html": 297 Content-Disposition: Attachment; filename=example.html 298 Direct UA to behave as if the Content-Disposition header field wasn't 299 present, but to remember the filename "an example.html" for a 300 subsequent save operation: 302 Content-Disposition: INLINE; FILENAME= "an example.html" 304 Note: this uses the quoted-string form so that the space character 305 can be included. 307 Direct UA to show "save as" dialog, with a filename containing the 308 Unicode character U+20AC (EURO SIGN): 310 Content-Disposition: attachment; 311 filename*= UTF-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates 313 Here, the encoding defined in [RFC5987] is also used to encode the 314 non-ISO-8859-1 character. 316 Same as above, but adding the "filename" parameter for compatibility 317 with user agents not implementing RFC 5987: 319 Content-Disposition: attachment; 320 filename="EURO rates"; 321 filename*=utf-8''%e2%82%ac%20rates 323 Note: as of February 2011, those user agents that do not support the 324 RFC 5987 encoding ignore "filename*" when it occurs after "filename". 325 Unfortunately, some user agents that do support RFC 5987 do pick the 326 "filename" rather than the "filename*" parameter when it occurs 327 first; it is expected that this situation is going to improve soon. 329 6. Internationalization Considerations 331 The "filename*" parameter (Section 4.3), using the encoding defined 332 in [RFC5987], allows the server to transmit characters outside the 333 ISO-8859-1 character set, and also to optionally specify the language 334 in use. 336 Future parameters might also require internationalization, in which 337 case the same encoding can be used. 339 7. Security Considerations 341 Using server-supplied information for constructing local filenames 342 introduces many risks. These are summarized in Section 4.3. 344 Furthermore, implementers also ought to be aware of the Security 345 Considerations applying to HTTP (see Section 15 of [RFC2616]), and 346 also the parameter encoding defined in [RFC5987] (see Section 5). 348 8. IANA Considerations 350 8.1. Registry for Disposition Values and Parameter 352 This specification does not introduce any changes to the registration 353 procedures for disposition values and parameters that are defined in 354 Section 9 of [RFC2183]. 356 8.2. Header Field Registration 358 This document updates the definition of the Content-Disposition HTTP 359 header field in the permanent HTTP header field registry (see 360 [RFC3864]). 362 Header field name: Content-Disposition 364 Applicable protocol: http 366 Status: standard 368 Author/Change controller: IETF 370 Specification document: this specification (Section 4) 372 9. Acknowledgements 374 Thanks to Adam Barth, Rolf Eike Beer, Bjoern Hoehrmann, Alfred 375 Hoenes, Roar Lauritzsen, Henrik Nordstrom, and Mark Nottingham for 376 their valuable feedback. 378 10. References 380 10.1. Normative References 382 [ISO-8859-1] International Organization for Standardization, 383 "Information technology -- 8-bit single-byte coded 384 graphic character sets -- Part 1: Latin alphabet No. 385 1", ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998, 1998. 387 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 388 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 390 [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., 391 Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext 392 Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. 394 [RFC5987] Reschke, J., "Character Set and Language Encoding for 395 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Header Field 396 Parameters", RFC 5987, August 2010. 398 10.2. Informative References 400 [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet 401 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", 402 RFC 2046, November 1996. 404 [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail 405 Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for 406 Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996. 408 [RFC2183] Troost, R., Dorner, S., and K. Moore, "Communicating 409 Presentation Information in Internet Messages: The 410 Content-Disposition Header Field", RFC 2183, 411 August 1997. 413 [RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and 414 Encoded Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and 415 Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997. 417 [RFC2388] Masinter, L., "Returning Values from Forms: multipart/ 418 form-data", RFC 2388, August 1998. 420 [RFC3864] Klyne, G., Nottingham, M., and J. Mogul, "Registration 421 Procedures for Message Header Fields", BCP 90, 422 RFC 3864, September 2004. 424 [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, 425 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", 426 STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005. 428 Appendix A. Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition 430 Compared to Section 19.5.1 of [RFC2616], the following normative 431 changes reflecting actual implementations have been made: 433 o According to RFC 2616, the disposition type "attachment" only 434 applies to content of type "application/octet-stream". This 435 restriction has been removed, because user agents in practice do 436 not check the content type, and it also discourages properly 437 declaring the media type. 439 o RFC 2616 only allows "quoted-string" for the filename parameter. 440 This would be an exceptional parameter syntax, and also doesn't 441 reflect actual use. 443 o The definition for the disposition type "inline" ([RFC2183], 444 Section 2.1) has been re-added with a suggestion for its 445 processing. 447 o This specification requires support for the extended parameter 448 encoding defined in [RFC5987]. 450 Appendix B. Differences compared to RFC 2183 452 Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition 453 parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time", 454 and "size". The majority of user agents does not implement these, 455 thus they have been omitted from this specification. 457 Appendix C. Alternative Approaches to Internationalization 459 By default, HTTP header field parameters cannot carry characters 460 outside the ISO-8859-1 ([ISO-8859-1]) character encoding (see 461 [RFC2616], Section 2.2). For the "filename" parameter, this of 462 course is an unacceptable restriction. 464 Unfortunately, user agent implementers have not managed to come up 465 with an interoperable approach, although the IETF Standards Track 466 specifies exactly one solution ([RFC2231], clarified and profiled for 467 HTTP in [RFC5987]). 469 For completeness, the sections below describe the various approaches 470 that have been tried, and explains how they are inferior to the RFC 471 5987 encoding used in this specification. 473 C.1. RFC 2047 Encoding 475 RFC 2047 defines an encoding mechanism for header fields, but this 476 encoding is not supposed to be used for header field parameters - see 477 Section 5 of [RFC2047]: 479 An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT appear within a 'quoted-string'. 481 ... 483 An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT be used in parameter of a MIME Content- 484 Type or Content-Disposition field, or in any structured field body 485 except within a 'comment' or 'phrase'. 487 In practice, some user agents implement the encoding, some do not 488 (exposing the encoded string to the user), and some get confused by 489 it. 491 C.2. Percent Encoding 493 Some user agents accept percent encoded ([RFC3986], Section 2.1) 494 sequences of characters. The character encoding being used for 495 decoding depends on various factors, including the encoding of the 496 referring page, the user agent's locale, its configuration, and also 497 the actual value of the parameter. 499 In practice, this is hard to use because those user agents that do 500 not support it will display the escaped character sequence to the 501 user. For those user agents that do implement this it is difficult 502 to predict what character encoding they actually expect. 504 C.3. Encoding Sniffing 506 Some user agents inspect the value (which defaults to ISO-8859-1 for 507 the quoted-string form) and switch to UTF-8 when it seems to be more 508 likely to be the correct interpretation. 510 As with the approaches above, this is not interoperable and 511 furthermore risks misinterpreting the actual value. 513 C.4. Implementations (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 515 Unfortunately, as of February 2011, neither the encoding defined in 516 RFCs 2231 and 5987, nor any of the alternate approaches discussed 517 above was implemented interoperably. Thus, this specification 518 recommends the approach defined in RFC 5987, which at least has the 519 advantage of actually being specified properly. 521 The table below shows the implementation support for the various 522 approaches: 524 +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ 525 | User Agent | RFC | RFC | Percent | Encoding | 526 | | 2231/5987 | 2047 | Encoding | Sniffing | 527 +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ 528 | Chrome | yes | yes | yes | yes | 529 | Firefox | yes (*) | yes | no | yes | 530 | Internet | yes (**) | no | yes | no | 531 | Explorer | | | | | 532 | Konqueror | yes | no | no | no | 533 | Opera | yes | no | no | no | 534 | Safari | no | no | no | yes | 535 +---------------+------------+--------+--------------+--------------+ 537 (*) Does not implement the fallback behavior to "filename" described 538 in Section 4.3. 540 (**) Starting with IE9RC, but only implements UTF-8. 542 Appendix D. Change Log (to be removed by RFC Editor before publication) 544 Note: the issues names in the change log entries for 545 draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http refer to . 548 D.1. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-00 550 Adjust terminology ("header" -> "header field"). Update rfc2231-in- 551 http reference. 553 D.2. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-01 555 Update rfc2231-in-http reference. Actually define the "filename" 556 parameter. Add internationalization considerations. Add examples 557 using the RFC 5987 encoding. Add overview over other approaches, 558 plus a table reporting implementation status. Add and resolve issue 559 "nodep2183". Add issues "asciivsiso", "deplboth", "quoted", and 560 "registry". 562 D.3. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-02 564 Add and close issue "docfallback". Close issues "asciivsiso", 565 "deplboth", "quoted", and "registry". 567 D.4. Since draft-reschke-rfc2183-in-http-03 569 Updated to be a Working Draft of the IETF HTTPbis Working Group. 571 D.5. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-00 573 Closed issues: 575 o : "handling of 576 unknown disposition types" 578 Slightly updated the notes about the proposed fallback behavior. 580 D.6. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-01 582 Various editorial improvements. 584 D.7. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02 586 Closed issues: 588 o : "state that 589 repeating parameters are invalid" 591 o : "warn about 592 %xx in filenames being misinterpreted" 594 o : "mention 595 control chars when talking about postprecessing the filename 596 parameter" 598 Update Appendix C.4; Opera 10.63 RC implements the recommended 599 fallback behavior. 601 D.8. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-03 603 Closed issues: 605 o : 606 "'modification-date' *is* implemented in Konq 4.5" 608 o : "clarify what 609 LWS means for the Content-Disp grammar" 611 o : "Avoid passive 612 voice in message requirements" 614 o : "text about 615 historical percent-decoding unclear" 617 o : "add 618 explanation of language tagging" 620 o : "Clarify that 621 C-D spec does not apply to multipart upload" 623 D.9. Since draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-04 625 Updated implementation information (Chrome 9 implements RFC 5987, IE 626 9 RC implements it for UTF-8 only). 628 Clarify who requirements are on, add a section discussing conformance 629 and handling of invalid field values in general. 631 Closed issues: 633 o : "Path 634 Separator Characters" 636 Index 638 C 639 Content-Disposition header 5 641 H 642 Headers 643 Content-Disposition 5 645 Author's Address 647 Julian F. Reschke 648 greenbytes GmbH 649 Hafenweg 16 650 Muenster, NW 48155 651 Germany 653 EMail: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 654 URI: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/