Re: Content-Disposition in PUT/POST

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 31 January 2012 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C6C621F8573 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:12:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.414, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 2oXVzTy2d3Hq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A201821F8554 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:12:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1RsKze-0007sv-Br for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:11:58 +0000
Received: from aji.keio.w3.org ([133.27.228.206]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1RsKzT-0007s4-Cg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:11:47 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.22]) by aji.keio.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1RsKzO-00073C-7h for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:11:46 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2012 21:11:10 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 31 Jan 2012 22:11:10 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18PDK5VJdAPrMDf6hCL2SN51B999EU0OW/kWGIR/E 3zaaHCmqdbtSSg
Message-ID: <4F2858ED.8000800@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:11:09 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Arnaud Quillaud <arnaud.quillaud@oracle.com>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <4F2832C3.1000200@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F2832C3.1000200@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=213.165.64.22; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mailout-de.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: aji.keio.w3.org 1RsKzO-00073C-7h 6c9c808294264e5c72ca903deaae7a83
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Content-Disposition in PUT/POST
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F2858ED.8000800@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/12276
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1RsKze-0007sv-Br@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:11:58 +0000

On 2012-01-31 19:28, Arnaud Quillaud wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The content-disposition header is defined in RFC6266:
> <<
>
> The Content-Disposition response header field is used to convey
> additional information about how to process the response payload, and
> also can be used to attach additional metadata, such as the filename
> to use when saving the response payload locally.
>
>>>
>
> This definition was inherited from RFC2616 and remains silent on the use
> of this header in HTTP *requests* although it seems like a natural fit
> in operations like WebDAV PUT (or AtomPUB POST). Is this an oversight ?

Not really; RFC 2616 defines it as response header as well.

> Thanks,
>
> Arnaud Quillaud
>
> PS: it looks like some WebDAV-like services are actually accepting this
> header in requests already (see
> https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/reference-headers#contentdisposition
> or
> http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/2006-03-01/API/RESTObjectPUT.html
> ).

We could relax the definition in RFC6266bis. In the meantime, 
experiments like the ones you mentioned are definitively useful.

Best regards, Julian