[Top] [All Lists]

Re: quoted-phrase in content-disposition header

1995-01-17 18:27:43
I am somewhat confused by the Content-Disposition header discussion.
There is an existing RFC draft that defines mapping between MIME and the
X.400 file transfer extended body part (draft-freed-ftbp-00.txt) - and
it defines the header "Content-Pathname:" to hold the X.400 pathname
attribute.  This attribute is nothing more than the file name and
(optional) path.

Rens' and Steve's draft proposes placing the file name in the
Content-Disposition header along with information on presentation.

Now that it looks like content-disposition is going to become real, I have
every intention of changing my use of content-pathname to use
content-disposition instead.

It looks like two places have been defined to hold what is essentially
the same information.  There may be character set and syntax issues to
deal with, but I don't think we need more than one place to hold the file
name associated with a body part.

My preference is to see the file name included in a separate header as
defined in Ned's draft.  Is there any advantage to placing it in the
Content-Disposition header?  The X.400 element can include
a full directory path, which is probably best ignored by a receiving
user agent.

Frankly, I have no real preference here. I just want a standardized place to
put this stuff -- filenames especially! One possibility is that we could expand
content-disposition to include a bunch of the parameters the FTBP mapping
needs. Note that this cannot usefully be extended to cover all the FTBP
material since some of it is too complex to easily fit within the content-type
or content-disposition parameter scheme.

I would like to have additional input and guidance on this matter from others
in this group, as well as from those doing the RFC1327 review.