I almost hate to ask, but could we do anything with:
MIME-Version: 2.0
?
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
the use of content-disposition filenames is seen by many of us as such
an egregious offense.
A receiver using the suggested filename to determine the content type
is indeed egregious; only the content-type should be used for that. A
receiver blindly using the suggested filename when saving to a file,
even if that filename is inconsistent with the content type according
to local naming rules, is also wrong. But I see nothing wrong with a
receiver using the suggested filename for its stated purpose (RFC 2183
section 2.3): as a starting point for constructing a suitable default
filename.
Neither do I.
HTTP had the right idea with Content-Encoding. It's too bad that it's
too late for MIME to use that model.
Yes, it is much too late, which makes this discussion largely pointless.
Ned