Re: Content-Disposition changes

[Steve Dorner <[e-mail]>]

At 10:14 PM 1/18/95, Keith Moore wrote:
>Hmmm.  If 'value' is redefined for all of MIME, won't it break
>existing MIME implementations and thus have a negative impact on the
>installed base?

Depends.  You redefined RFC 822's "phrase" without having a negative impact
on anything (except perhaps the aesthetic value of raw RFC 822 mail :-)).

>I suppose the RFC that redefines 'value' could include a caution to
>not use the new syntax for awhile

If there were ever a time to change MIME-Version, changing the parameter
syntax would be it.

>at least not except for non-ASCII strings.

A fine thought.  These can't be represented at all now.  If the encoding
(like 1522) fits into the old grammar, then old MIME implementations will
see a syntactically valid but very ugly parameter value (again, like 1522).
That doesn't seem so bad.  (And DEFINITELY doesn't seem so bad for C-D's
filename parameter.)

If it doesn't fit with the old syntax, then the problem is bigger.  But it
can't simply be punted on.  We can't simply prohibit non-us-ascii
characters in parameter values forevermore!

All I want the C-D RFC to say is that, when the problem is solved for MIME
in general, the same solution should be used for C-D, either explicitly
(via a revision) or implicitly.  If you can think of better words for that,
I'll be happy to use them.

--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated.  "Oog make mission statement."