W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: NEW ISSUE: content sniffing

From: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:46:08 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640904010946p508cea8dod7cae503431e32e7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>>> The current HTTP spec contains a requirement that contradicts this
>>> widespread practice.  It seems we should update this part of the spec
>>> to reflect reality (and, perhaps, nudge reality into a slightly better
>>> equilibrium).
>>
>> Which requirement is that?
>
> From http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec7.html#sec7.2.1
>
> "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."

Thanks.  I would be happy to remove that text, not to encourage
sniffing, but because it has nothing to do with the HTTP protocol.

Mark.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 16:46:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:02 GMT