[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Nmh-workers] content-disposition (was Re: flattening continuation lines

From: Paul Fox
Subject: [Nmh-workers] content-disposition (was Re: flattening continuation lines )
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:14:23 -0400

 > > come up with -- i probably would have duplicated much of the code
 > > that lets one insert Content-Description headers, in order to let
 > > the user specify Content-Disposition in a similar manner (with,
 > > perhaps { } delimeters in the draft file.
 > It would be good to have this working in the C code and it may not be
 > too hard. Has anyone got any good ideas on a syntax. Using { } isn't a
 > bad idea.
 > At a simple level we might have { attachment } and { inline } but what
 > should it do by default? And can we perhaps do something to avoid the
 > need to repeat the filename three times in this:
 > #text/plain; name="file.txt" { attachment; filename="file.txt" } 
 > /tmp/file.txt
 > I'd quite like to make it fairly intelligent by default. So:
 >   #text/plain /tmp/file.txt
 > would result in:
 >   Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="file.txt"
 > and you would need:
 >   #text/plain { } /tmp/file.txt
 > for no disposition header.

that sounds fine to me, but i don't consider myself an expert.

so basically, the entire text between the { } pair would fully
specify the Content-disposition header, but that unlike
Content-description (which has no default value), the
Content-disposition header would have a default value of
        attachment; filename="<file basename>"
does that sound right?


 > The name attribute in content-type is deprecated in rfc2046 by the way.
 > Content-Disposition is defined in rfc1806.

it sounds like this proposal would feed into that nicely, since it
changes the default mhbuild behavior to do the right thing.

 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 62.4 degrees)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]