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

Re: PROPOSAL: content sniffing [#155]

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:31:46 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0904072331q456a2562w5b40d16bf6ff3ed4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Mark Baker <mark@coactus.com>, "=JeffH" <Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Maybe we should say something like:

"When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
body SHOULD be determined via the header fields Content-Type and
Content-Encoding."

That seems to clarify the level of conformance required.

Adam


On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> I think the disconnect here is that HTTP folks are assuming that this
> statement is made within the scope of HTTP; i.e., someone using HTTP will
> take that value and figure out what to do with it.
>
>
> On 08/04/2009, at 4:21 PM, Adam Barth wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems like Mark's proposal is the minimum required to declare victory,
>>> from an HTTP standpoint at least.
>>>
>>> Remove this text from p3 section 3.2.1:
>>>>
>>>> "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."
>>
>> I'm not an expert at spec reading, but the spec would still say:
>>
>> "When an entity-body is included with a message, the data type of that
>> body is determined via the header fields Content-Type and
>> Content-Encoding."
>>
>> This seems false since the data type might be determined after taking
>> other information into account.
>>
>> Adam
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 06:32:42 GMT

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