The identifier is a name for the issue (and is unique within this document).
The type of issue is one of:
The status of the issue is one of:
The reference is an indication of where the issue was first raised.
The description is a succinct overview of the issue.
The resolution describes the specification change that resolves the issue.
| Identifier | Type / Status | Reference and Description | Proposed Resolution / Latest Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| edit |
edit open |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2009-10-16: Umbrella issue for editorial fixes/enhancements. | latest change in revision latest |
| Identifier | Type / Status | Reference and Description | Resolution / Latest Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| asciivsiso |
change closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: We should be consistent about what RFC 2616 defaults to (ASCII vs ISO-8859-1). | in revision 03: Say "ISO-8859-1", and also make the ISO-8859-1 ref normative. |
| deplboth |
change closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: Add an example that uses both "filename" and "filename*" and mention current UA behavior. | in revision 03: Add the example, and mention the issues with it. |
| docfallback |
edit closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-30: Describe the implementation quality of the fallback behavior. | in revision 03: Done. |
| nodep2183 |
change closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23: Make sure we do not have a normative dependency on RFC 2183. | in revision 02: Done. |
| quoted |
change closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23:
Can value be quoted-pair as well? It is "value" only in RFC 2183, but
"quoted-string" only in 2616. UAs seem to handle quoted-strings,
although some have trouble unescaping backslashes.
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-24: Actually, "value" is "token" or "quoted-string", both in RFC 2616 and RFC 2183 (by reference to RFC 2045). The only problem is that RFC 2616 uses quoted-string instead of value in the definition for the filename parameter. This is a bug in 2616. |
in revision 03: Note the change in "Changes from the RFC 2616 Definition". |
| registry |
change closed |
julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, 2010-08-23: The registry technically is for the MIME header, but has been used for C-D in other protocols already. What's missing are instructions that new registrations should state which protocol they're for. Do we want to attempt to modify the registry? | in revision 03: Add a section about extensibility explaining the existing registries. |
| Version | Issues |
|---|---|
| latest | ||||||| |
| 03 | ||||||| |
| 02 | |||||| |
| 01 | | |
| 00 |
Last change: 2010-08-30