18.01.2012, в 11:26, Geoffrey Garen написал(а): > Once again, I think the best option is to make a decision about > deprecatedFrameEncoding based on its merits.
Most browsers respect default encoding when parsing Content-Disposition (*), which is against the letter and spirit of RFC 6266. So I think that following working group consensus on one spec provision is a weak argument while disobeying other ones. When we agree that non-ASCII bytes in Content-Disposition are be interpreted using out of band context, I find it quite obvious that referring frame encoding is the best piece of context we have. It's what used for subframe default encoding as well, so ignoring it just for file names would be inconsistent. *) Tested a direct download of a file. IE 9: Respects default encoding that depends on system language. Safari 5.1.2: Respects default encoding that is configurable in preferences. Chrome 16.0.912.75: Respects default encoding - not sure if it's manually configurable, but it's Windows-1251 (Cyrillic) on my machine. Firefox 9.0.1: Does not appear to respect default encoding (but then it of course respects referring frame encoding). Opera 11.60: Respects default encoding, but buggy for Russian primary language, picking a different encoding than what is used for page content (ISO-8859-5 instead of Windows-1251). - WBR, Alexey Proskuryakov _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
