On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:05 PM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Richard Jones <rich...@python.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM, python.org wiki <w...@python.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You can access JSON information about packages by using the URL format
>>>>
>>>> http://pypi.python.org/pypi/package_name/json
>>>
>>> Why Content-Disposition: attachment; ???
>>> Please, CC.
>>
>> Why not? IIRC when I implemented it at the EuroPython sprints I asked
>> around those near me and the consensus was for attachment. It should
>> have no bearing on programmatic use, and I find it more convenient for
>> in-browser use (since application/json is not handled).
>
> What do you mean by in-browser use? Chrome downloads this URL instead
> of displaying contents inline, and it becomes much harder to debug.
That is in-browser use. When I was testing the browser in use at the
time (firefox? chrome?) would complain that there was no application
assigned to application/json content. It seemed a better solution to
have the file download to disk where the user could choose what to do
with it. And as I said, the people present at the sprint at the time
agreed :-)
I've just turned off that header, and it appears Chromium nightly
(from a couple of days ago) displays the content in the browser with
no fuss. The latest Firefox still complains, but the latest Safari is
ok with just dumping it in the page.
Does anyone have any objections to removing the "Content-Disposition:
attachment"?
Richard
_______________________________________________
Catalog-SIG mailing list
Catalog-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
