分享
 
 
 

RFC1867(请求注释)规范

王朝other·作者佚名  2006-01-08
窄屏简体版  字體: |||超大  

Network Working Group E. Nebel

Request For Comments: 1867 L. Masinter

Category: Experimental Xerox Corporation

November 1995

Form-based File Upload in HTML

Status of this Memo

This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet

community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any

kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.

Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

1. Abstract

Currently, HTML forms allow the producer of the form to request

information from the user reading the form. These forms have proven

useful in a wide variety of applications in which input from the user

is necessary. However, this capability is limited because HTML forms

don't provide a way to ask the user to submit files of data. Service

providers who need to get files from the user have had to implement

custom user applications. (Examples of these custom browsers have

appeared on the www-talk mailing list.) Since file-upload is a

feature that will benefit many applications, this proposes an

extension to HTML to allow information providers to express file

upload requests uniformly, and a MIME compatible representation for

file upload responses. This also includes a description of a

backward compatibility strategy that allows new servers to interact

with the current HTML user agents.

The proposal is independent of which version of HTML it becomes a

part.

2. HTML forms with file submission

The current HTML specification defines eight possible values for the

attribute TYPE of an INPUT element: CHECKBOX, HIDDEN, IMAGE,

PASSWORD, RADIO, RESET, SUBMIT, TEXT.

In addition, it defines the default ENCTYPE attribute of the FORM

element using the POST METHOD to have the default value

"application/x-www-form-urlencoded".

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 1]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

This proposal makes two changes to HTML:

1) Add a FILE option for the TYPE attribute of INPUT.

2) Allow an ACCEPT attribute for INPUT tag, which is a list of

media types or type patterns allowed for the input.

In addition, it defines a new MIME media type, multipart/form-data,

and specifies the behavior of HTML user agents when interpreting a

form with ENCTYPE="multipart/form-data" and/or

tags.

These changes might be considered independently, but are all

necessary for reasonable file upload.

The author of an HTML form who wants to request one or more files

from a user would write (for example):

File to process:

The change to the HTML DTD is to add one item to the entity

"InputType". In addition, it is proposed that the INPUT tag have an

ACCEPT attribute, which is a list of comma-separated media types.

... (other elements) ...

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 2]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

... (other elements) ...

3. Suggested implementation

While user agents that interpret HTML have wide leeway to choose the

most appropriate mechanism for their context, this section suggests

how one class of user agent, WWW browsers, might implement file

upload.

3.1 Display of FILE widget

When a INPUT tag of type FILE is encountered, the browser might show

a display of (previously selected) file names, and a "Browse" button

or selection method. Selecting the "Browse" button would cause the

browser to enter into a file selection mode appropriate for the

platform. Window-based browsers might pop up a file selection window,

for example. In such a file selection dialog, the user would have the

option of replacing a current selection, adding a new file selection,

etc. Browser implementors might choose let the list of file names be

manually edited.

If an ACCEPT attribute is present, the browser might constrain the

file patterns prompted for to match those with the corresponding

appropriate file extensions for the platform.

3.2 Action on submit

When the user completes the form, and selects the SUBMIT element, the

browser should send the form data and the content of the selected

files. The encoding type application/x-www-form-urlencoded is

inefficient for sending large quantities of binary data or text

containing non-ASCII characters. Thus, a new media type,

multipart/form-data, is proposed as a way of efficiently sending the

values associated with a filled-out form from client to server.

3.3 use of multipart/form-data

The definition of multipart/form-data is included in section 7. A

boundary is selected that does not occur in any of the data. (This

selection is sometimes done probabilisticly.) Each field of the form

is sent, in the order in which it occurs in the form, as a part of

the multipart stream. Each part identifies the INPUT name within the

original HTML form. Each part should be labelled with an appropriate

content-type if the media type is known (e.g., inferred from the file

extension or operating system typing information) or as

application/octet-stream.

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 3]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

If multiple files are selected, they should be transferred together

using the multipart/mixed format.

While the HTTP protocol can transport arbitrary BINARY data, the

default for mail transport (e.g., if the ACTION is a "mailto:" URL)

is the 7BIT encoding. The value supplied for a part may need to be

encoded and the "content-transfer-encoding" header supplied if the

value does not conform to the default encoding. [See section 5 of

RFC 1521 for more details.]

The original local file name may be supplied as well, either as a

'filename' parameter either of the 'content-disposition: form-data'

header or in the case of multiple files in a 'content-disposition:

file' header of the subpart. The client application should make best

effort to supply the file name; if the file name of the client's

operating system is not in US-ASCII, the file name might be

approximated or encoded using the method of RFC 1522. This is a

convenience for those cases where, for example, the uploaded files

might contain references to each other, e.g., a TeX file and its .sty

auxiliary style description.

On the server end, the ACTION might point to a HTTP URL that

implements the forms action via CGI. In such a case, the CGI program

would note that the content-type is multipart/form-data, parse the

various fields (checking for validity, writing the file data to local

files for subsequent processing, etc.).

3.4 Interpretation of other attributes

The VALUE attribute might be used with tags for a

default file name. This use is probably platform dependent. It might

be useful, however, in sequences of more than one transaction, e.g.,

to avoid having the user prompted for the same file name over and

over again.

The SIZE attribute might be specified using SIZE=width,height, where

width is some default for file name width, while height is the

expected size showing the list of selected files. For example, this

would be useful for forms designers who expect to get several files

and who would like to show a multiline file input field in the

browser (with a "browse" button beside it, hopefully). It would be

useful to show a one line text field when no height is specified

(when the forms designer expects one file, only) and to show a

multiline text area with scrollbars when the height is greater than 1

(when the forms designer expects multiple files).

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 4]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

4. Backward compatibility issues

While not necessary for successful adoption of an enhancement to the

current WWW form mechanism, it is useful to also plan for a migration

strategy: users with older browsers can still participate in file

upload dialogs, using a helper application. Most current web browers,

when given , will treat it as and

give the user a text box. The user can type in a file name into this

text box. In addition, current browsers seem to ignore the ENCTYPE

parameter in the element, and always transmit the data as

application/x-www-form-urlencoded.

Thus, the server CGI might be written in a way that would note that

the form data returned had content-type application/x-www-form-

urlencoded instead of multipart/form-data, and know that the user was

using a browser that didn't implement file upload.

In this case, rather than replying with a "text/html" response, the

CGI on the server could instead send back a data stream that a helper

application might process instead; this would be a data stream of

type "application/x-please-send-files", which contains:

* The (fully qualified) URL to which the actual form data should

be posted (terminated with CRLF)

* The list of field names that were supposed to be file contents

(space separated, terminated with CRLF)

* The entire original application/x-www-form-urlencoded form data

as originally sent from client to server.

In this case, the browser needs to be configured to process

application/x-please-send-files to launch a helper application.

The helper would read the form data, note which fields contained

'local file names' that needed to be replaced with their data

content, might itself prompt the user for changing or adding to the

list of files available, and then repackage the data & file contents

in multipart/form-data for retransmission back to the server.

The helper would generate the kind of data that a 'new' browser

should actually have sent in the first place, with the intention that

the URL to which it is sent corresponds to the original ACTION URL.

The point of this is that the server can use the *same* CGI to

implement the mechanism for dealing with both old and new browsers.

The helper need not display the form data, but *should* ensure that

the user actually be prompted about the suitability of sending the

files requested (this is to avoid a security problem with malicious

servers that ask for files that weren't actually promised by the

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 5]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

user.) It would be useful if the status of the transfer of the files

involved could be displayed.

5. Other considerations

5.1 Compression, encryption

This scheme doesn't address the possible compression of files. After

some consideration, it seemed that the optimization issues of file

compression were too complex to try to automatically have browsers

decide that files should be compressed. Many link-layer transport

mechanisms (e.g., high-speed modems) perform data compression over

the link, and optimizing for compression at this layer might not be

appropriate. It might be possible for browsers to optionally produce

a content-transfer-encoding of x-compress for file data, and for

servers to decompress the data before processing, if desired; this

was left out of the proposal, however.

Similarly, the proposal does not contain a mechanism for encryption

of the data; this should be handled by whatever other mechanisms are

in place for secure transmission of data, whether via secure HTTP or

mail.

5.2 Deferred file transmission

In some situations, it might be advisable to have the server validate

various elements of the form data (user name, account, etc.) before

actually preparing to receive the data. However, after some

consideration, it seemed best to require that servers that wish to do

this should implement this as a series of forms, where some of the

data elements that were previously validated might be sent back to

the client as 'hidden' fields, or by arranging the form so that the

elements that need validation occur first. This puts the onus of

maintaining the state of a transaction only on those servers that

wish to build a complex application, while allowing those cases that

have simple input needs to be built simply.

The HTTP protocol may require a content-length for the overall

transmission. Even if it were not to do so, HTTP clients are

encouraged to supply content-length for overall file input so that a

busy server could detect if the proposed file data is too large to be

processed reasonably and just return an error code and close the

connection without waiting to process all of the incoming data. Some

current implementations of CGI require a content-length in all POST

transactions.

If the INPUT tag includes the attribute MAXLENGTH, the user agent

should consider its value to represent the maximum Content-Length (in

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 6]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

bytes) which the server will accept for transferred files. In this

way, servers can hint to the client how much space they have

available for a file upload, before that upload takes place. It is

important to note, however, that this is only a hint, and the actual

requirements of the server may change between form creation and file

submission.

In any case, a HTTP server may abort a file upload in the middle of

the transaction if the file being received is too large.

5.3 Other choices for return transmission of binary data

Various people have suggested using new mime top-level type

"aggregate", e.g., aggregate/mixed or a content-transfer-encoding of

"packet" to express indeterminate-length binary data, rather than

relying on the multipart-style boundaries. While we are not opposed

to doing so, this would require additional design and standardization

work to get acceptance of "aggregate". On the other hand, the

'multipart' mechanisms are well established, simple to implement on

both the sending client and receiving server, and as efficient as

other methods of dealing with multiple combinations of binary data.

5.4 Not overloading :

Various people have wondered about the advisability of overloading

'INPUT' for this function, rather than merely providing a different

type of FORM element. Among other considerations, the migration

strategy which is allowed when using is important. In

addition, the field *is* already overloaded to contain most

kinds of data input; rather than creating multiple kinds of

tags, it seems most reasonable to enhance . The 'type' of

INPUT is not the content-type of what is returned, but rather the

'widget-type'; i.e., it identifies the interaction style with the

user. The description here is carefully written to allow to work for text browsers or audio-markup.

5.5 Default content-type of field data

Many input fields in HTML are to be typed in. There has been some

ambiguity as to how form data should be transmitted back to servers.

Making the content-type of fields be text/plain clearly

disambiguates that the client should properly encode the data before

sending it back to the server with CRLFs.

5.6 Allow form ACTION to be "mailto:"

Independent of this proposal, it would be very useful for HTML

interpreting user agents to allow a ACTION in a form to be a

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 7]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

"mailto:" URL. This seems like a good idea, with or without this

proposal. Similarly, the ACTION for a HTML form which is received via

mail should probably default to the "reply-to:" of the message.

These two proposals would allow HTML forms to be served via HTTP

servers but sent back via mail, or, alternatively, allow HTML forms

to be sent by mail, filled out by HTML-aware mail recipients, and the

results mailed back.

5.7 Remote files with third-party transfer

In some scenarios, the user operating the client software might want

to specify a URL for remote data rather than a local file. In this

case, is there a way to allow the browser to send to the client a

pointer to the external data rather than the entire contents? This

capability could be implemented, for example, by having the client

send to the server data of type "message/external-body" with

"access-type" set to, say, "uri", and the URL of the remote data in

the body of the message.

5.8 File transfer with ENCTYPE=x-www-form-urlencoded

If a form contains elements but does not contain an

ENCTYPE in the enclosing , the behavior is not specified. It

is probably inappropriate to attempt to URN-encode large quantities

of data to servers that don't expect it.

5.9 CRLF used as line separator

As with all MIME transmissions, CRLF is used as the separator for

lines in a POST of the data in multipart/form-data.

5.10 Relationship to multipart/related

The MIMESGML group is proposing a new type called multipart/related.

While it contains similar features to multipart/form-data, the use

and application of form-data is different enough that form-data is

being described separately.

It might be possible at some point to encode the result of HTML forms

(including files) in a multipart/related body part; this is not

incompatible with this proposal.

5.11 Non-ASCII field names

Note that mime headers are generally required to consist only of 7-

bit data in the US-ASCII character set. Hence field names should be

encoded according to the prescriptions of RFC 1522 if they contain

characters outside of that set. In HTML 2.0, the default character

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 8]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

set is ISO-8859-1, but non-ASCII characters in field names should be

encoded.

6. Examples

Suppose the server supplies the following HTML:

What is your name?

What files are you sending?

and the user types "Joe Blow" in the name field, and selects a text

file "file1.txt" for the answer to 'What files are you sending?'

The client might send back the following data:

Content-type: multipart/form-data, boundary=AaB03x

--AaB03x

content-disposition: form-data; name="field1"

Joe Blow

--AaB03x

content-disposition: form-data; name="pics"; filename="file1.txt"

Content-Type: text/plain

... contents of file1.txt ...

--AaB03x--

If the user also indicated an image file "file2.gif" for the answer

to 'What files are you sending?', the client might client might send

back the following data:

Content-type: multipart/form-data, boundary=AaB03x

--AaB03x

content-disposition: form-data; name="field1"

Joe Blow

--AaB03x

content-disposition: form-data; name="pics"

Content-type: multipart/mixed, boundary=BbC04y

--BbC04y

Content-disposition: attachment; filename="file1.txt"

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 9]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

Content-Type: text/plain

... contents of file1.txt ...

--BbC04y

Content-disposition: attachment; filename="file2.gif"

Content-type: image/gif

Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary

...contents of file2.gif...

--BbC04y--

--AaB03x--

7. Registration of multipart/form-data

The media-type multipart/form-data follows the rules of all multipart

MIME data streams as outlined in RFC 1521. It is intended for use in

returning the data that comes about from filling out a form. In a

form (in HTML, although other applications may also use forms), there

are a series of fields to be supplied by the user who fills out the

form. Each field has a name. Within a given form, the names are

unique.

multipart/form-data contains a series of parts. Each part is expected

to contain a content-disposition header where the value is "form-

data" and a name attribute specifies the field name within the form,

e.g., 'content-disposition: form-data; name="xxxxx"', where xxxxx is

the field name corresponding to that field. Field names originally in

non-ASCII character sets may be encoded using the method outlined in

RFC 1522.

As with all multipart MIME types, each part has an optional Content-

Type which defaults to text/plain. If the contents of a file are

returned via filling out a form, then the file input is identified as

application/octet-stream or the appropriate media type, if known. If

multiple files are to be returned as the result of a single form

entry, they can be returned as multipart/mixed embedded within the

multipart/form-data.

Each part may be encoded and the "content-transfer-encoding" header

supplied if the value of that part does not conform to the default

encoding.

File inputs may also identify the file name. The file name may be

described using the 'filename' parameter of the "content-disposition"

header. This is not required, but is strongly recommended in any case

where the original filename is known. This is useful or necessary in

many applications.

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 10]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

8. Security Considerations

It is important that a user agent not send any file that the user has

not explicitly asked to be sent. Thus, HTML interpreting agents are

expected to confirm any default file names that might be suggested

with . Never have any hidden fields be

able to specify any file.

This proposal does not contain a mechanism for encryption of the

data; this should be handled by whatever other mechanisms are in

place for secure transmission of data, whether via secure HTTP, or by

security provided by MOSS (described in RFC 1848).

Once the file is uploaded, it is up to the receiver to process and

store the file appropriately.

9. Conclusion

The suggested implementation gives the client a lot of flexibility in

the number and types of files it can send to the server, it gives the

server control of the decision to accept the files, and it gives

servers a chance to interact with browsers which do not support INPUT

TYPE "file".

The change to the HTML DTD is very simple, but very powerful. It

enables a much greater variety of services to be implemented via the

World-Wide Web than is currently possible due to the lack of a file

submission facility. This would be an extremely valuable addition to

the capabilities of the World-Wide Web.

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 11]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

Authors' Addresses

Larry Masinter

Xerox Palo Alto Research Center

3333 Coyote Hill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Phone: (415) 812-4365

Fax: (415) 812-4333

EMail: masinter@parc.xerox.com

Ernesto Nebel

XSoft, Xerox Corporation

10875 Rancho Bernardo Road, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92127-2116

Phone: (619) 676-7817

Fax: (619) 676-7865

EMail: nebel@xsoft.sd.xerox.com

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 12]

RFC 1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML November 1995

A. Media type registration for multipart/form-data

Media Type name:

multipart

Media subtype name:

form-data

Required parameters:

none

Optional parameters:

none

Encoding considerations:

No additional considerations other than as for other multipart types.

Published specification:

RFC 1867

Security Considerations

The multipart/form-data type introduces no new security

considerations beyond what might occur with any of the enclosed

parts.

References

[RFC 1521] MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part One:

Mechanisms for Specifying and Describing the Format of

Internet Message Bodies. N. Borenstein & N. Freed.

September 1993.

[RFC 1522] MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Two:

Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text. K. Moore.

September 1993.

[RFC 1806] Communicating Presentation Information in Internet

Messages: The Content-Disposition Header. R. Troost & S.

Dorner, June 1995.

Nebel & Masinter Experimental [Page 13]

 
 
 
免责声明:本文为网络用户发布,其观点仅代表作者个人观点,与本站无关,本站仅提供信息存储服务。文中陈述内容未经本站证实,其真实性、完整性、及时性本站不作任何保证或承诺,请读者仅作参考,并请自行核实相关内容。
2023年上半年GDP全球前十五强
 百态   2023-10-24
美众议院议长启动对拜登的弹劾调查
 百态   2023-09-13
上海、济南、武汉等多地出现不明坠落物
 探索   2023-09-06
印度或要将国名改为“巴拉特”
 百态   2023-09-06
男子为女友送行,买票不登机被捕
 百态   2023-08-20
手机地震预警功能怎么开?
 干货   2023-08-06
女子4年卖2套房花700多万做美容:不但没变美脸,面部还出现变形
 百态   2023-08-04
住户一楼被水淹 还冲来8头猪
 百态   2023-07-31
女子体内爬出大量瓜子状活虫
 百态   2023-07-25
地球连续35年收到神秘规律性信号,网友:不要回答!
 探索   2023-07-21
全球镓价格本周大涨27%
 探索   2023-07-09
钱都流向了那些不缺钱的人,苦都留给了能吃苦的人
 探索   2023-07-02
倩女手游刀客魅者强控制(强混乱强眩晕强睡眠)和对应控制抗性的关系
 百态   2020-08-20
美国5月9日最新疫情:美国确诊人数突破131万
 百态   2020-05-09
荷兰政府宣布将集体辞职
 干货   2020-04-30
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案逍遥观:鹏程万里
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案神机营:射石饮羽
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案昆仑山:拔刀相助
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案天工阁:鬼斧神工
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案丝路古道:单枪匹马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:与虎谋皮
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:李代桃僵
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案镇郊荒野:指鹿为马
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:小鸟依人
 干货   2019-11-12
倩女幽魂手游师徒任务情义春秋猜成语答案金陵:千金买邻
 干货   2019-11-12
 
推荐阅读
 
 
 
>>返回首頁<<
 
靜靜地坐在廢墟上,四周的荒凉一望無際,忽然覺得,淒涼也很美
© 2005- 王朝網路 版權所有