W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: HTML5 vs content type sniffing

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:44:00 +0100
Message-Id: <5225A251-DF7E-42F9-BEBB-56B9591C9739@greenbytes.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer@backsla.sh>


Am 29.01.2008 um 14:24 schrieb Robert Siemer:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:53:49AM +0100, Stefan Eissing wrote:
>
>> In the case of "text/plain" apache httpd is still (2.2.6) shipping
>> with DefaultType set to it, ignoring the rules set up by RFC 2616
>> (which seem to be unchanged in httpbis as far as i can see). So, if
>> the apache defaults are changed, will whatwg have to change the
>> sniffing "standard"? most likely.
>
> Where does RFC2616 set up rules on how Apache has to serve
> its documents? A section mandating on how to deduce the Content- 
> Type of
> arbitrary files would be new to me.

http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#entity
7.2.1 Type
[...]
Any HTTP/1.1 message containing an entity-body SHOULD include a  
Content-Type header field defining the media type of that body. If  
and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the  
recipient MAY attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its  
content and/or the name extension(s) of the URI used to identify the  
resource. If the media type remains unknown, the recipient SHOULD  
treat it as type "application/octet-stream".

This defines the way how entities where the content-type is not known  
are handled. I hear that apache has changed its implementation in the  
dev trunk already. So, httpd will by default not send a content-type  
for "unkown" resources.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 13:44:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT