On 02.03.2011 15:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
...
Proposed change for the three items in 4.3:
o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold
type information in the file system, but rely on filename
extensions instead. Trusting the server-provided file extension
could
On 01.03.2011 17:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
I agree that this needs tuning; but I'd rather not invent a new keyword for
that.
Sensible.
The appendix D
(http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.D)
isn't meant to be normative; thus I believe leaving it
Hi Barry,
we're tracking this as
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/278.
On 01.03.2011 00:33, Barry Leiba wrote:
I'm sorry not to have posted this during WGLC, but I didn't notice it until now:
The document uses the phrase are advised [to do something] in two
places (the
I agree that this needs tuning; but I'd rather not invent a new keyword for
that.
Sensible.
The appendix D
(http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.D)
isn't meant to be normative; thus I believe leaving it the way it is ought
to be ok.
OK.
Julian Reschke wrote:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-06.html#rfc.section.4.3,
I believe we really should say SHOULD in all the three last items:
o Many platforms do not use Internet Media Types ([RFC2046]) to hold
type information in the
On 01.03.2011 18:06, Martin Rex wrote:
...
o Other aspects recipients need to be aware of are names that have a
special meaning in the file system or in shell commands, such as
. and .., ~, |, and also device names.
- ...and SHOULD and ignore or substitute these names...
