On 2011-06-03 14:23, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 03.06.2011, 10:23 Uhr, schrieb Eduard Pascual <herenva...@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler
<den...@efjot.de> wrote:
By the way, another point that we have to discuss:
Which tag should a browser favor. The one in HTTP or the other one in
HTML?
Is that really worth discussing? HTTP >> HTML: whomever provides the
file should have the last say about how the file needs to be served,
regardless of what a site referencing to it may suggest.
Furthermore, when links point to URIs with any scheme other than
"http:", whatever the scheme defines about how to deliver the file
takes precedence.
Thus, only in the lack of an actual Content-Disposition header, or its
equivalent on some other scheme, would the attribute given by the link
be used, just like an additional fallback step before whatever the
UA's default behaviour would be.
I agree that I shouldn't even have asked since this is actually a no-
brainer. I can't think of any good reason to overwrite the http header
with the html attribute.
Alright, so, moving on...
This grants the ability for any content provider to use an explicit
"Content-Disposition: inline" HTTP header to effectively block
"download links" from arbitrary sources.
True. Is it still so that some browsers ignore the "filename" part
of a content-disposition if an "inline" disposition is used?
Yes, see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc2231/#inlwithasciifilename>.
Apparently only Firefox gets this right.
...
Best regards, Julian
