Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)

Glossary

The identifier is a name for the issue (and is unique within this document).

The type of issue is one of:

The status of the issue is one of:

The reference is an indication of where the issue was first raised.

The description is a succinct overview of the issue.

The resolution describes the specification change that resolves the issue.

Open Issues

Identifier Type / Status Reference and Description Proposed Resolution / Latest Change
edit
edit
open
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2009-10-16: Umbrella issue for editorial fixes/enhancements. latest change in revision latest

Closed/Editor Issues

Identifier Type / Status Reference and Description Resolution / Latest Change
asciivsiso
change
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: We should be consistent about what RFC 2616 defaults to (ASCII vs ISO-8859-1). in revision 03:
Say "ISO-8859-1", and also make the ISO-8859-1 ref normative.
deplboth
change
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: Add an example that uses both "filename" and "filename*" and mention current UA behavior. in revision 03:
Add the example, and mention the issues with it.
docfallback
edit
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-30: Describe the implementation quality of the fallback behavior. in revision 03:
Done.
nodep2183
change
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23: Make sure we do not have a normative dependency on RFC 2183. in revision 02:
Done.
quoted
change
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23: Can value be quoted-pair as well? It is "value" only in RFC 2183, but "quoted-string" only in 2616. UAs seem to handle quoted-strings, although some have trouble unescaping backslashes.

julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: Actually, "value" is "token" or "quoted-string", both in RFC 2616 and RFC 2183 (by reference to RFC 2045). The only problem is that RFC 2616 uses quoted-string instead of value in the definition for the filename parameter. This is a bug in 2616.
in revision 03:
Note the change in "Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition".
registry
change
closed
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23: The registry technically is for the MIME header, but has been used for C-D in other protocols already. What's missing are instructions that new registrations should state which protocol they're for. Do we want to attempt to modify the registry? in revision 03:
Add a section about extensibility explaining the existing registries.

Progress

Version Issues
latest |||||||
03 |||||||
02 ||||||
01 |
00

Last change: 2010-08-30