On 6/5/11 3:53 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On 6/5/11, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Why need they be? This isn't Bittorrent.
I think you completely misunderstood my mail... the point is that
browses do NOT all use the last non-empty path component; some try to
guess a filename based
On 2011-06-03 17:46, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
...
I strongly disagree. I think browsers that use the Content-Disposition
filename for attachment but not inline are just buggy and should be
fixed.
FWIW MSIE9 seems to honor the filename hint with inline (contrary to
the test results mentioned
Am 03.06.2011, 15:16 Uhr, schrieb Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler den...@efjot.de
wrote:
This grants the ability for any content provider to use an explicit
Content-Disposition: inline HTTP header to effectively block
download links
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler den...@efjot.de wrote:
Yes, I was trying to refer to the verbosity. There's no html attributes
with dashes in them as far as I know, except for data-, which are user-
defined. This would kind of break the convention a little. I could think
On 6/6/11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
My point was that there should be _a_ standardized way that sites can
use to get consistent behavior across browsers. Content-Disposition
headers see like that way to me.
More importantly there should be an implementation defined convention
so
On 6/3/11 2:58 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
On 6/3/11, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 11:46 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Note that some browsers will do weird parsing of the query params to
attempt to extract a useful filename. That seems strictly worse than
just using
On 6/5/11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Why need they be? This isn't Bittorrent.
I think you completely misunderstood my mail... the point is that
browses do NOT all use the last non-empty path component; some try to
guess a filename based on the query params, in various ways.
No, I
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:24:21 +0100, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Think a URI like this:
http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010
When saving, it would be good to use something like Progress report of
Q1 2010 as the filename. But that's not part of the URI
Am 03.06.2011, 10:23 Uhr, schrieb Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler den...@efjot.de
wrote:
By the way, another point that we have to discuss:
Which tag should a browser favor. The one in HTTP or the other one in
HTML?
Is that really
On 2011-06-03 14:23, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 03.06.2011, 10:23 Uhr, schrieb Eduard Pascual herenva...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler
den...@efjot.de wrote:
By the way, another point that we have to discuss:
Which tag should a browser favor. The one
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler den...@efjot.de wrote:
This grants the ability for any content provider to use an explicit
Content-Disposition: inline HTTP header to effectively block
download links from arbitrary sources.
True. Is it still so that some browsers ignore
On 6/3/11 9:16 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
Ok, I have never even thought about using the filename argument with
an explicit inline disposition. When I am in control of the headers,
I find it easier to fix the filename with 301/302 redirects
That doesn't work if the data is dynamically generated.
On 6/3/11 8:09 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote:
Eduard Pascualherenva...@gmail.com schrieb am Fri, 3 Jun 2011
10:23:25 +0200:
This grants the ability for any content provider to use an explicit
Content-Disposition: inline HTTP header to effectively block
download links from arbitrary sources.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 9:16 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
Ok, I have never even thought about using the filename argument with
an explicit inline disposition. When I am in control of the headers,
I find it easier to fix the filename with
On 6/3/11 10:39 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010
Wouldn't that default (in the absence of a Content-disposition) to
generate_progress_report.php as the filename?
Depends on the browser. But yes. And that's a crappy filename for the
On 6/3/11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010
When saving, it would be good to use something like Progress report of
Q1 2010 as the filename. But that's not part of the URI in any sense.
So you're suggesting using the title
On 6/3/11 11:46 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Note that some browsers will do weird parsing of the query params to
attempt to extract a useful filename. That seems strictly worse than
just using Content-Disposition.
That's slightly better than just using the last non-empty path
component,
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 10:39 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
http://mysite.org/generate_progress_report.php?quarter=Q12010
Wouldn't that default (in the absence of a Content-disposition) to
generate_progress_report.php as the filename?
On 6/3/11 2:48 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
For a typical snippet of client-side form validation, one or two extra
lines of JS can beautify in advance for a GET form.
Why are you assuming there's any client-side validation code involved?
I'm not sure what do you mean by no one ever sees the
On 6/3/11, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 6/3/11 11:46 AM, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
Note that some browsers will do weird parsing of the query params to
attempt to extract a useful filename. That seems strictly worse than
just using Content-Disposition.
That's slightly better
On 5/26/11, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx wrote:
Keep in mind that the mechanism *is* extremely imperfect. It only
works for MIME types and extensions recognized by the browser (which
is a small list). There's a large disconnect between this set, the set
handled by the OS, and the actual
On Linux you may have comprehensive mailcap lists in /etc, or better
yet the filename extension to MIME type mappings used by httpds.
Which still don't necessarily map to the behavior of every single file
manager; some of them come with their own rules (heck, even mc does
that IIRC), some rely
I don't think the issue raised was about getting people to save files,
though. If you can get someone to click a link, you can already point
them at something that sets the HTTP C-D header.
As I recall, the concern was about getting people to do this on files
that appear to be from a trusted
I don't think the issue raised was about getting people to save files,
though. If you can get someone to click a link, you can already point
them at something that sets the HTTP C-D header.
The origin of a download is one of the best / most important
indicators people have right now (which,
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx wrote:
I don't think the issue raised was about getting people to save files,
though. If you can get someone to click a link, you can already point
them at something that sets the HTTP C-D header.
The origin of a download is
Am 02.06.2011, 21:58 Uhr, schrieb Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx
wrote:
I don't think the issue raised was about getting people to save files,
though. If you can get someone to click a link, you can already point
them at
On 5/26/11 2:06 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
a href='http://example.com/user_content/harmless_text_file.txt'
disposition='attachment; filename=Important_Security_Update.exe'
At least in the case of Firefox for that particular case on Windows
thefilename will be sanitized...
So what does
Hi Boris,
Am 26.05.2011, 20:15 Uhr, schrieb Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu:
On 5/26/11 2:06 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
I believe it forces the extension to match the MIME type; if the type
text/plain the saved filename will be
Important_Security_Update.exe.txt.
Ah, alright. This
On 5/26/11 2:16 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Wouldn't this be no immediate problem on Linux type OSs? There's usually
no execution bit set on files downloaded.
Yes, that's the one saving grace. Usually is key, though.
And practically you can run ALL files as binaries, it looks for the
Am 26.05.2011, 21:08 Uhr, schrieb Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu:
Yes, that's the one saving grace. Usually is key, though.
Usually, damn.
There is little practical difference for the user between running a
binary and running a perl script, and sneaking in a text file with a .pl
On 5/26/11 3:12 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Oh I see the problem... Is it the bang? #!/bin/perl #!/bin/python
#!/bin/bash
could very well result in the text file being executed in one of those
interpreters,
right?
Yes, but even worse on some systems a .pl file will just handed over to
On 5/26/11 4:40 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Though I think it still would happen rarely that a pl file gets downloaded.
The problem is getting the user to save a text file you control as a .pl
file.
I mean who on the most popular system, Windows, has a Perl interpreter
installed?
Am 26.05.2011, 22:53 Uhr, schrieb Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu:
Probably no one, to a first approximation, but we were specifically
talking about non-Windows systems. On Windows, as I said, Gecko forces
extensions to match content types, to avoid this sort of issue in
general.
Yep,
On 2011-05-26 22:54, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 26.05.2011, 22:53 Uhr, schrieb Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu:
Probably no one, to a first approximation, but we were specifically
talking about non-Windows systems. On Windows, as I said, Gecko forces
extensions to match content types, to
Am 26.05.2011, 22:58 Uhr, schrieb Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de:
On 2011-05-26 22:54, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 26.05.2011, 22:53 Uhr, schrieb Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu:
Probably no one, to a first approximation, but we were specifically
talking about non-Windows systems.
On 4/30/11 2:24 PM, Michal Zalewski wrote:
Note that somewhat counterintuitively, there would be some security
concerns with markup-level content disposition controls (or any JS
equivalent). For example, consider evil.com doing this:
a
At least in the case of Firefox for that particular case on Windows the
filename will be sanitized...
Yes, but Firefox is an exception, not a rule; and even that mechanism
is very imperfect (it relies on explicit mappings that are not
guaranteed to be in sync with other OS components; when
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Folks did propose making FileSaver do this at TPAC, but we haven't
gotten around to hashing out the details yet. The idea was that
FileSaver would take
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx wrote:
Note that somewhat counterintuitively, there would be some security
concerns with markup-level content disposition controls (or any JS
equivalent). For example, consider evil.com doing this:
a
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Michal Zalewski lcam...@coredump.cx wrote:
My concern is a bit more straightforward. To use a practical example:
just because a social networking site allows nearly arbitrary JPEG
files to be uploaded and served as profile pictures (Content-Type:
image/jpeg)
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
svartma...@gmail.comwrote:
Right. As an end-user I ask: Does a web developer publishing links to
resources have a say as to whether I render aforementioned resource
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
Folks did propose making FileSaver do this at TPAC, but we haven't
gotten around to hashing out the details yet. The idea was that
FileSaver would take a URL instead of a Blob, and thus could also be
used for downloading
On 4/10/11, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027455.html
A big +1 to the proposal in this thread, to allow specifying
Content-Disposition behavior in anchors. a download=filename.txt would
have the effect of adding (or
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.comwrote:
Right. As an end-user I ask: Does a web developer publishing links to
resources have a say as to whether I render aforementioned resource
immediately, write it to disk or both?
As far as Content-Disposition
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-July/027455.html
A big +1 to the proposal in this thread, to allow specifying
Content-Disposition behavior in anchors. a download=filename.txt would
have the effect of adding (or overriding) the header Content-Disposition:
attachment;
On 02.08.2010 18:56, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
2010/8/2 Kornel Lesińskikor...@geekhood.net:
Downloads can be forced already with Content-Disposition: attachment. It's
just harder to do, and unfortunately that doesn't stop webmasters from trying. Popular
PHP snippets for forcing download are among
On 06.08.2010 05:49, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
...
IMO there should be a standard metadata wrapper that should be around
virtually all files being passed around the Internet. Downloaders should
register the metadata to xattrs or somesuch and uploaders should collect
said metadata and rewrap it.
Am 07.12.2010, 10:13 Uhr, schrieb Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de:
It would be great if those scripts could just get fixed.
Do you actually think that would HAPPEN? I think not. Better have people
get
rid of them entirely. Though that wouldn't happen either.
I'm still all for such a
On 07.12.2010 18:51, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Am 07.12.2010, 10:13 Uhr, schrieb Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de:
It would be great if those scripts could just get fixed.
Do you actually think that would HAPPEN? I think not. Better have people
get
rid of them entirely. Though that
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Roger Hågensen wrote:
[..] I navigated to the http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions where
I found: enclosure described as the destination of the hyperlink is
intended to be downloaded and cached and it's marked as proposed
currently.
And it links further to
Am 26.09.2010, 21:43 Uhr, schrieb Ian Hickson i...@hixie.ch:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, den...@efjot.de wrote:
That's unnecessary; I guarantee that I will read and reply to every
e-mail sent to this mailing list that provides new feedback. All
pending e-mails are tracked here:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Yeah, that's just got the e-mails that are pending, not the ones that
got a reply. It's actually just a copy of my IMAP folders, updated
nightly. :-)
Oh! That's... kind of cool ;-).
Just be careful that no personal mails get in that
On 26.09.2010 12:39, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to bring this back to attention.
I don't want this to be forgotten before anybody who is official
has said their definitive yes or no about it.
Or how else do new additions find their way into the draft?
Many were positive
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
I'd like to bring this back to attention.
I don't want this to be forgotten before anybody who is official has
said their definitive yes or no about it.
This thread has in fact already received an official reply:
This thread has in fact already received an official reply:
I am sorry, I didn't recognize you were one of the managers here.
I should've read more.
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-August/028148.html
That e-mail received a reply that I haven't responded to yet:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, den...@efjot.de wrote:
That's unnecessary; I guarantee that I will read and reply to every
e-mail sent to this mailing list that provides new feedback. All
pending e-mails are tracked here:
http://www.whatwg.org/issues/
Alright, but I didn't see the answer
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Having a Content-Disposition property on a tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header. For example changing the file name of the file to be
downloaded or rather have a image file download rather than it being
shown in the browser
On 2010-08-25 21:09, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Having a Content-Disposition property ona tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header. For example changing the file name of the file to be
downloaded or rather have a image file download rather than it
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 8/2/10 1:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
If you don't agree that this use-case is worth adding the feature for,
do you think that:
3) Something else?
For the use case your describe, it might just make more sense for
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com w=
rote:
A) Per resource metadata:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Some resource is inherently insuitable for imm=
ediate
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0presentation. Metadata regarding this can be p=
rovided by e.g. the
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Michael Kozakewich
mkozakew...@icosidodecahedron.com wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but we try not to force users to do things.
Let's say you have an image editor, written using canvas
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius svartma...@gmail.com wrote:
A) Per resource metadata:
Some resource is inherently insuitable for immediate
presentation. Metadata regarding this can be provided by e.g. the
Content-Disposation header of RFC 2076 (MIME).
Dennis wrote:
I have an idea which would be very cool for HTML5.
Having a Content-Disposition property on a tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header.
For example changing the file name of the file to be downloaded or rather
have a image
file download rather than it being shown in the
I'm really not too sure what pre-existing problem this actually solves.
Given that a server sets the correct mime-types for a given resource, we
know what type it is already.
Setting the Content-disposition on the client side creates an annoying user
experience.
If I want to open a link in a new
Jeremy Keith jer...@adactio.com wrote:
Dennis wrote:
...
Hang on... isn't the mechanism for this already available via the type
attribute?
For example:
a href=/path/to/image.jpg type=image/jpegFull size image/a
That wouldn't help in this case...
A browser could offer a preference
Ben Schwarz ben.schw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not too sure what pre-existing problem this actually solves.
Given that a server sets the correct mime-types for a given resource, we
know what type it is already.
Yes, since we don't want to set MIME-Types. I want to be able to set
what a
Dennis wrote:
Yes, but that wouldn't help since I want to force downloads regardless
of the browser settings.
Ah, I see. In that case, I fundamentally disagree with what you are asking for.
Final control should be in the hands of the user, not the author.
--
Jeremy Keith
a d a c t i o
On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 18:09 +0200, Dennis Joachimsthaler wrote:
Ben Schwarz ben.schw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm really not too sure what pre-existing problem this actually solves.
Given that a server sets the correct mime-types for a given resource, we
know what type it is already.
Yes,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Michael Kozakewich
mkozakew...@icosidodecahedron.com wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Yes, but that wouldn't help since I want to force downloads regardless
of the browser settings. Maybe it would do if the type was set to
application/octet-stream, since those, by default,
On 2 Aug 2010, at 17:21, Michael Kozakewich wrote:
Dennis wrote:
Yes, but that wouldn't help since I want to force downloads regardless
of the browser settings. Maybe it would do if the type was set to
application/octet-stream, since those, by default, always get downloaded.
People don't
2010/8/2 Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net:
Downloads can be forced already with Content-Disposition: attachment. It's
just harder to do, and unfortunately that doesn't stop webmasters from
trying. Popular PHP snippets for forcing download are among the most
disgusting cargo-cult code
Kornel Lesiński kor...@geekhood.net wrote:
On 2 Aug 2010, at 17:21, Michael Kozakewich wrote:
I agree that it's not good to force users in general. However, this
attribute can be implemented only as a hint for browsers to display
Open/Save dialog. Users wouldn't be forced to download the
Am 02.08.2010 18:21 schrieb Michael Kozakewich:
Dennis wrote:
Yes, but that wouldn't help since I want to force downloads regardless
of the browser settings. Maybe it would do if the type was set to
application/octet-stream, since those, by default, always get downloaded.
People don't often
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Michael Kozakewich
mkozakew...@icosidodecahedron.com wrote:
People don't often like it when they're forced to do something. If they want
to download it, they can select Save Link As... from their browser.
If the author can predict that the user probably wants to
On 8/2/10 1:15 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
If you don't agree that this use-case is worth adding the feature for,
do you think that:
3) Something else?
For the use case your describe, it might just make more sense for
browsers to support Content-Disposition on data: URIs directly
somehow...
Perhaps to avoid the legacy baggage it could be a simple attribute
eg. a href=blah download
This would prevent duplicating 'type', and bringing in all the
knowledge people seem to not have about how 'content-disposition'
works in headers.
or even an extension of target?
eg. a href=blah
Hello,
I have an idea which would be very cool for HTML5.
Having a Content-Disposition property on a tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header.
For example changing the file name of the file to be downloaded or rather
have a image
file download rather than it being shown in the browser
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Dennis Joachimsthaler den...@efjot.de wrote:
Hello,
I have an idea which would be very cool for HTML5.
Having a Content-Disposition property on a tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header.
For example changing the file name of the file to be downloaded or
On 2010-07-30 20:54, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Dennis Joachimsthalerden...@efjot.de wrote:
Having a Content-Disposition property ona tags which does the same as
the HTTP Header.
For example changing the file name of the file to be downloaded or rather
have a
On 7/30/10 9:57 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
a href=stuff.zip downloadThis defaults to application/octet-stream
and clicking the link will behave as if the user selected Save As from
UI context menu!/a
I would object to implementing this. I have no problem putting up a
dialog asking the user
On 2010-07-31 03:57, Roger Hågensen wrote:
Another example:
a href=cool.png downloadimage src=cool_sm.jpg/a
How many here have had that wishful thinking work exactly like you wanted?
That is the minimal use case, old browsers would behave as currently,
those supporting this on the other hand
On 2010-07-31 04:17, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 7/30/10 9:57 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
a href=stuff.zip downloadThis defaults to application/octet-stream
and clicking the link will behave as if the user selected Save As from
UI context menu!/a
I would object to implementing this. I have no
On 2010-07-30 20:54, Eduard Pascual wrote:
Let me complement the proposal with a use case:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3358209/triggering-a-file-download-without-any-server-request
Now something like that is a bit more tricky, but can't Javascript
actually trigger a proper Save As?
On 7/30/10 10:27 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
On 7/30/10 9:57 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
a href=stuff.zip downloadThis defaults to application/octet-stream
and clicking the link will behave as if the user selected Save As from
UI context menu!/a
When I say the Save As UI I mean the one you
On 2010-07-31 04:52, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
When I say the Save As UI I mean the one you get currently, which
varies, some browsers only provide a Save As and Cancel, while others
provide Save As with Open and Cancel.
I can't name a single browser that provides an Open option if you
select
On 7/30/10 10:59 PM, Roger Hågensen wrote:
On 2010-07-31 04:52, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
When I say the Save As UI I mean the one you get currently, which
varies, some browsers only provide a Save As and Cancel, while others
provide Save As with Open and Cancel.
I can't name a single browser
93 matches
Mail list logo
