[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bogusly RFC2047'd "inline" for Content-Disposition
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: Bogusly RFC2047'd "inline" for Content-Disposition |
Date: |
Sat, 26 Sep 2020 17:09:36 +0100 |
Hi Ken,
> > Content-Disposition: =?utf-8?Q?inline?=
...
> It seems, however, we should simply follow RFC 2183 and treat it as an
> "unknown" disposition (which means "default as attachment").
I disagree. :-)
Given RFC 2183's grammar,
disposition := "Content-Disposition" ":"
disposition-type
*(";" disposition-parm)
disposition-type := "inline"
/ "attachment"
/ extension-token
; values are not case-sensitive
coupled with RFC 2045,
extension-token := ietf-token / x-token
ietf-token := <An extension token defined by a
standards-track RFC and registered
with IANA.>
x-token := <The two characters "X-" or "x-" followed, with
no intervening white space, by any token>
that field does not parse so RFC 2183's
Unrecognized disposition types should be treated as `attachment'.
does not apply as we do not have a disposition type, recognised or not.
--
Cheers, Ralph.