[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?
paul
>
> 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
=---------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 62.4 degrees)