-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add fallback for old browsers when using ?filename parameter #7648
Comments
Sounds like a sensible enhancement @auburnsummer, but I have some questions before you invest time in implementing this:
|
|
@auburnsummer sgtm, going with underscores is a way to go, makes this safe to add with low risk. |
Did not hear back from original author – I'll take this one. |
This adds ASCII-only filename for clients that do not implement RFC 5987 Closes #7648
@auburnsummer I believe #7677 does what you want :) |
When using the
?filename
parameter, the IPFS gateway adds aContent-Disposition
header that is RFC 5987 encoded.For instance, if I passed
?filename=hello.zip
IPFS gives this as theContent-Disposition
:However, not all browsers/clients correctly support RFC 5987. This can lead to unexpected behaviour with the filename parameter seemingly being ignored or treated incorrectly.
The typical fallback is to provide both a
filename
andfilename*
in theContent-Disposition
:It would be good if the IPFS gateway did this to increase compatibility.
I'm not super familiar with Go, but I could have a go at this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: