Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 19 September 2013 10:28 UTC
Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB4621F9302 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.556, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41Y-uccuV4W6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30F3021F9196 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 03:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.117] ([93.217.69.230]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0Lj1Xa-1Vu1nl2lSQ-00dEJ9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:28:00 +0200
Message-ID: <523AD1A3.6000808@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 12:27:47 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D34728C1A86@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D34728C1A86@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:O7NOvYt+OfhQsOcdIobK0ZeZ8kDDjYXRqZYUCMnJmt2vXNb7j3a Zudfdbo1J83pA9TSLD4O2UJBemvd9KZ/H6vw7QxEXP0yYRRARwbENA86n7UZc5Y5KbhIXRs 7SofiB0YJ8lvQucfHHA7MkBOsp6n1MwKV+g8c1ccKN7o5buP6bPJcQf9uK3Hh/6B1lARIBj vM+qD6OX4JZxOlzXnxo+w==
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:28:06 -0000
On 2013-08-15 20:28, Larry Masinter wrote: > I'm working on a revision to RFC 2388 multipart/form-data > but I want some feedback before submitting a first draft. > > I sent a pointer before, > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16909#c8 > > but perhaps you can comment instead on > https://github.com/masinter/multipart-form-data > > > RFC 2388 was clear: > Field names originally in non-ASCII character sets may be encoded > within the value of the "name" parameter using the standard method > described in RFC 2047. > > For reasons I don't understand, browsers did different, incompatible > things. Insane complexity? :-) Too many ways to do the same thing? > I think the main advice is: > > * those creating HTML forms > SHOULD use ASCII field names, since deployed HTML processors vary, > and field names shouldn't be visible to the user anyway. +1 > * Those developing server infrastructure to read multipart/form-data uploads > SHOULD be aware of the varying behavior of the browsers in translating > non-ASCII field names, and look for any of the variants (if they're > expecting non-ASCII field names). If this is a SHOULD we need to better understand what these variants are. Study standard libraries? Write tests? > * Those developing browsers should migrate toward a standard > encoding, but the server infrastructure will still have to do > fuzzy match for a long while. > > What should the browsers migrate to? > > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5987.txt > seems like a more recent proposal and possibly implemented in HTTP anyway. +1 > Sites that use non-ASCII field names and want to work with multiple > browsers already have to do fuzzy matching. > > The problem is that the fuzzy matchers already deployed might not > recognize any *NEW* encodings. Also, they probably vary on User-Agent. > So I suppose having a name* value would be necessary. Indeed. We had the same conversation for Content-Disposition (the HTTP header field), and in the those UA vendors opposed to RFC2231/5987 gave up and implemented it (IE, Chrome, Safari). Best regards, Julian
- [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Larry Masinter
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Dave Cridland
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] Feedback on multipart/form-data Daniel Stenberg